COLUMBIA    UNIVERSITY,    TEACHERS     COLLEGE 

CONTRIBUTIONS    TO    EDUCATION 


^m 


maKffi& 


NO.  6 


SOME 


HI 


Fiscal  Aspects 

OF 

ublic  Education 


::     ::' 


EDWARD  C.  ELLIOTT,  Ph.D. 


mm 


m 


PUBLISHED    BY 

(Teacbers  College,  Columbia  'GlnfversftE 

NEW  YORK 


j.J;-;:'  ■■-;■:■ ::.   ;■• 


;;■':.■';;■;•■% 


2329  ott 


Southern  Branch 
of  the 

University  of  California 


Los  Angeles 


Form  L   1 


This  book  is  DUE  on  the  last  date  stamped  below 


PETE 


MAY  %  6  1941. 


RSON    SEMINAR 


Form  L-9-15m-10,'25 


V 


COLUMBIA     UNIVERSITY,     TEACHERS     COLLEGE 

CONTRIBUTIONS    TO    EDUCATION 

NO.  6 


SOME  FISCAL  ASPECTS  OF  PUBLIC 

EDUCATION  IN  AMERICAN 

CITIES 


BY 


EDWARD  C.  ELLIOTT,  Ph.D. 

Associate  Professor  of  Education,  University  of  Wisconsin 

JBI34 


PUBLISHED    BY 

ZTeacbers  Colleae,  Columbia  XHniversitp 
NEW  YORK 

190^ 


L-B 

CONTENTS 


PAGE 

I.     Introduction i 

Twofold  aspect  of  present  educational  thought    .  i 

The  scientific  aspect  of  education i 

The  economic  aspect  of  education 2 

Organized   education   as   a   producer   and   con- 
sumer of  social  energy 3 

Public  education  and  public  taxation    ....  5 

Summary •  6 

Aim  of  present  study 7 

II.     Public  Education  and  the  American  City     .     .  7 
Public  education  and  the  scope  of  modern  muni- 
cipal needs  and  activities 7 

Increased  importance  of  municipal  fiscal  prob- 
lems        8 

State  control  of  municipal  education     ....  9 

Fiscal  isolation  of  municipal  education      ...  10 

Unity  of  municipal  life        11 

III.  Basis  and  Method  of  Investigation      ....  12 

Financial  statistics  of  cities 12 

Method  of  statistical  treatment 15 

IV.  Character,  Arrangement  and  Preliminary  Ma- 

nipulation op  Data 16 

Data  of  expenditures  for  municipal  maintenance 

and  operation  for  1900  and  1901        .     .     .     .  16 
Percentile  tables  of  expenditures  No.  1  (1900) 

and  No.  2  (1901) 18 

Transformation  of  gross  itemized  expenditures 

to  a  percentile  basis 26 

Variability  of  Expenditures 26 

General  statement 26 

Tables  of  frequency  (Tables  ^{a)-/\{h))      ...  27 

Explanation  of  tables  of  frequency  ...           .  31 
Graphical  representation  of  variability  (Figs.  1 

to  10)        32 

i 


ii  Contents 

PAGE 

VI.     Measurement  of  Variability 35 

Method  of  probable  error 35 

Table  of  probable  errors  (Table  4 a)       ....  36 

Method  of  deviation  from  central  tendency   .     .  36 

Table  of  deviations  (Table  5) 38 

Coefficient  of  variability 40 

Table  of  medians,  average  deviations,  standard 
deviations,    and     coefficients    of    variability 

(Table  6)        40 

Relationships  of  variabilities 40 

VII.     Causes  of  Variability 41 

Influence  of  population 42 

Influence  of  geographical  location 44 

Influence  of  municipal  environment      ....  46 
Influence  of  the  mode  of  classification  of  public 

accounts  and  of  systems  of  accounting    ...  46 

Influence  of  state  subsidies  for  education  ...  50 

Influence  of  distribution  of  functions    ....  52 

Influence  of  economic  wealth 53 

Influence  of  methods  of  revenue  and  expendi- 
ture administration 54 

Influence  of  municipal  personality  and  ideals     .  54 

Conclusion 55 

VIII.     Relationships  between  Items  of  Expenditure  56 

Implications  of  the  variability 56 

The  Pearson  coefficient  of  correlation    ....  56 

Existing  relationships  (Table  10) 57 

Significance  of  relationships 58 

Graphical  representation  of  relationships  (Fig. 

11) 60 

IX.     Variability   and  Correlation   of   Per  Capita 

Expenditures    . 61 

Data 61 

Variability  of  per  capita  expenditures   (Tables 

11  and  12) 62 

Graphical   representation   of  per  capita  varia- 
bility (Figs.  12  to  16) 65 

Pearson  coefficients  of  per  capita  correlations 

(Table  13) 66 


Contents  iii 

PAGE 

X.     Supplementary  Study  of  the  Variability  and 

Correlation  of  Municipal  Expenditures  67 

Data  of  municipal  expenditures  for  1902  and  1903  67 

Selection  of  cities       71 

Preliminary  arrangement  of  data 71 

Percentile  table  of  average  payments  for  general 

and  municipal  service  expenses  (Table  14)      .  72 

XI.     Supplementary  Study  of  the  Variability  and 
Correlation  of  Municipal  Expenditures 

(continued)       75 

Tables  of  frequency  (Table  15) 75 

Surfaces  of  frequency  (Figs.  17  to  28)  .  .  .  .  77 
Measurement  of  variability;  probable  error  .  81 
Table  of  probable  errors  (Table  16)  ....  81 
Measurement    of    variability:     deviation    from 

central  tendency 81 

Table  of  deviations  (Table  17) 82 

Measurement  of  variability :  coefficient  of  varia- 
bility     83 

Table  of   medians,    average   deviations,   stand- 
ard deviations,  and  coefficients  of  variability 

(Table  18) 83 

Causes  of  variability 84 

Relationships     of    variabilities :     coefficient     of 

correlation 84 

Table    of    Pearson    coefficients    of    correlation 
(Table  19) 85 

XII.     Relationships  of  the  Different  Standards  of 

Expenditures  for  Education     ....       85 
Classification  of  cities  on  the  basis  of  percentile 

school  expenditures 85 

Tables    of   group    relationships     (Tables    20(a), 

20(6),  21) 86 

Classification  of  cities  on  the  basis  of  per  capita 

school  expenditures 89 

Tables  of  group  relationships  (Table  22)    .     .     .       89 

Fiscal  standards  for  education 89 

Classification  of  cities  on  the  basis  of  cost  per 

pupil 90 


•'  v  Contents 


PAGE 


Valuation  of  the  different  standards      ....  90 

Relationship  of  the  different  standards      ...  90 

Value  of  percentile  standard 91 

Table  of  rankings  (Table  23) 92 

Value  of  per  capita  standard 95 

Value  of  cost  per  pupil  standard 96 

Ranking  according  to  weighed  values    ....  98 

XIII.     General  Conclusions 98 

Bibliography 100 


SOME    FISCAL    ASPECTS    OF    PUBLIC 
EDUCATION    IN   AMERICAN    CITIES 

By  EDWARD  C.  ELLIOTT,  A.M.  (Nebraska);  Ph.D.  (Columbia); 
Associate  Professor  of  Education,  University  of  Wisconsin 

I.     Introduction 

Twofold  Aspect  of  Present  Educational  Thought. — There  are 
at  the  present  time  two  well-defined  tendencies  in  our  public 
educational  thought  and  activity,  which  may  be  designated  as 
the  scientific  and  the  economic.  At  the  outset,  it  may  be  well  to 
anticipate  the  possible  obscureness  or  confusion  arising  from 
the  use  of  these  terms,  possessing,  as  they  do,  meanings  of  both 
variable  content  and  application. 

The  Scientific  Aspect  of  Education. — The  so-called  scientific 
spirit  is  as  old  as  modern  science,  and  its  invasion  of  the  field  of 
educational  activity  has  been  as  extended  and  as  rapid  as  those 

^sciences,  fundamental  and  cognate  to  education,  have  developed 
to  act  as  guides  and  leaders  for  the  advance. 

5^        This  scientific  aspect,  as  it  concerns  organized  public  educa- 
«  tion,  is  best  defined  by  the  many  and  varied  efforts  of  the  day 

tyto  evaluate  the  results  of  educational  endeavor;  to  measure  in 
terms  of  some  standard  unit  the  relation  between  effort  and 
result;  to  give  to  education,  in  a  degree  at  least,  some  of  the 
exactitude  and  precision  which  have  grown  up  within  the 
physical,  biological,  and  social  sciences.  It  has,  as  it  were, 
assumed  three  phases.  On  the  one  hand  is  the  child;  on  the 
other,  the  teeming  and  multiplex  super-organism  of  society; 
between,  stands  the  school  as  an  adapting  institution.  Each  of 
these  primary  elements  of  the  educational  process  has  been,  and 


2  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

is  being,  subjected  to  that  searching  inquiry,  criticism  and 
judgment  characteristic  of  the  scientific  attitude,  in  order  that 
there  may  be  wrought  into  the  structure  of  the  organiza- 
tion, curricula,  and  aim  of  the  school  the  established  funda- 
mental principles  of  human  development  and  social  efficiency. 
Every  concrete  study  and  investigation  of  the  ever-changing 
and  developing  physical,  mental,  moral,  and  social  capacities  of 
the  child;  every  attempt  to  define  and  estimate  the  working 
efficiency  of  the  practices  of  the  school,  by  means  of  more 
adequate  standards;  every  measurement  of  the  results  of  the 
school  in  terms  of  those  values  established  in  the  social  medium ; 
every  critical  interpretation  of  the  educational  method  and 
organization — the  number  and  frequency  of  these  during  re- 
cent years  furnish  ample  evidence  of  the  ceaseless  and  ever- 
spreading  scientific  activity  that  seeks  a  rational  purpose 
beneath  educational  practices  and  ideals,  which,  too  frequently 
in  the  past,  have  been  grounded  in  tradition,  prejudice,  or 
social  inertia.1 

The  Economic  Aspect  of  Education. — The  application  of  the 
word  "economic"  to  education  may  appear  to  be  of  doubtful 
validity  or  propriety.  The  materialistic  elements  and  biased 
political  associations  of  the  word  seem  to  have  prevented  its  in- 
trusion into  the  terminology  of  education ;  yet  there  are  ample 
reasons  to  warrant  the  belief  that  there  is  soon  to  be  developed 
a  definite  field  of  knowledge  to  which  may  be  applied,  with 
aptness  as  well  as  precision,  the  term  "economics  of  education." 

In  a  wide  sense,  the  scientific  aspect  of  education  is  inclusive 
of  the  economic  aspect.  Economics  as  a  science,  and  in  its 
broadest  significance,  comprehends  the  laws  of  the  correlation 
and  conservation  of  social  energy.  In  this  sense,  all  applica- 
tions of  scientific  method  to  each  of  the  threefold  phases  of 
public  education  have  a  final  economic  aspect ;  for  every  series  of 

1  The  argument  here  is  not  at  all  concerned  with  the  doubtful  discus- 
sion as  to  the  existence  of  a  "science"  of  education.  Any  attempt  to 
establish  a  completer  individuality  for  educational  knowledge  is  likely 
to  end  in  specious  contention.  However,  the  application  of  scientific 
method  to  the  problems  of  education  is  another  and  different  matter. 
Through  this  means  will  the  problems  be  carried  toward  a  rational,  logi- 
cal, and  unbiased  solution.  Indeed,  by  it  also,  the  problems  themselves 
will  become  more  clearly  defined  as  the  study  of  the  appropriate  phe- 
nomena progresses. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  3 

observations  upon  the  workings  of  the  developing  mental,  bodily 
or  moral  organization  of  the  learning  child,  every  alteration  of 
administrative  system  and  every  revision  of  curricula  have  as  a 
goal  the  influencing  and  improvement  of  the  conditions  under 
which  the  educational  process  may  take  place  with  the  least  of 
retardation,  and  with  a  minimum  of  waste  of  effort  or  energy. 
This  is  necessarily  true  if  such  observations  are  conducted  above 
the  plane  of  mere  scientific  dilettanteism,  and  if  suggested  ad- 
ministrative and  instructional  changes  are  posited  as  results  of 
rational  inquiry. 

In  its  larger  meaning,  too,  all  education — especially  all 
schemes  for  national  public  education,  representing  as  they  do 
the  supreme  conscious  effort  of  peoples  for  the  conservation  and 
correlation  of  their  social  forces  and  for  the  perpetuation  of 
their  social  traditions — has  a  definite  economic  significance.  As 
the  wealth,  enlightenment,  ideals  and  progressive  character  of 
peoples  are  determined  in  a  large  measure  by  their  opportunities 
for  education,  so  are  their  opportunities  for  education  fixed 
by  the  material  and  ethical  elements  of  their  existence.1 

Public  Education  as  a  Producer  and  Consumer  of  Social  Energy. 
— As  an  instrumentality  for  the  development  of  individual 
wholeness,  for  effecting  the  amalgamation  and  cohesion  of  di- 
verse racial  and  cultural  elements  into  a  national  unity,  and  for 
directing  social  energy  towards  social  progress,  we  of  the  United 
States  have  doubted  but  little  the  total  productiveness  of  our 
plan  of  education.  Our  faith  has  been  instinctive  rather  than 
rational,  for  we  have  always  lacked  any  definite  standards  by 
means  of  which  its  individual  or  social  results  could  be  tested 
with  any  degree  of  accuracy. 

Qualitatively,  through  the  roughly  and  ill  constructed  sub- 
jective standards  of  public  opinion,  it  has  been  assumed  that 
every  investment  of  public  funds  in  public  education  yielded 
an  immeasurable  dividend  in  the  form  of  an  enlightened,  moral, 
and  efficient  citizenship. 

Quantitatively,  these  dividends  are  almost  impossible  of 
measurement.  Aside  from  the  rather  inadequate  standards, 
established  by  statistical  investigations  of  the  illiteracy,  crime, 

1  Seager,  H.  R.,  Introduction  to  Economics,  pp.  233  ff.,  gives  a  short, 
yet  definite,  exposition  of  the  reciprocal  relation  of  education  and  economic 
condition. 


4  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

poverty,  and  earning  capacity  of  our  population,  we  have  had 
no  gauges  with  which  to  determine  in  any  exact  or  satisfactory 
manner  the  amount  of  those  elements  of  culture  and  worth, 
entering  into  individual  and  social  values,  which  could  be  traced 
back  to  the  influence  of  public  education.  This  has  been 
necessarily  so,  and  there  will  perhaps  always  be  a  total  absence 
of  standard  values  in  estimating  the  larger  effectiveness  of 
public  education.  For  the  forces  generated  and  directed  by 
organized  education  cannot  be  subjected  to  those  modes  of 
measurement  applicable  to  physical  forces  which  display  a 
constancy  and  universality  foreign  to  the  activities  of  educa- 
tion, functioning  as  these  latter  do  under  the  widely  varying 
conditions  of  race  and  individual  capacity,  and  of  economic 
state  and  class  ideals  which  arise  in  natural  consequence  of  our 
democracy  and  freedom  of  competition. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  recognition  of  this  phase  of  the 
economic  aspect  of  the  educational  process,  as  a  problem,  is  the 
first  condition  for  the  application  of  a  scientific  method  for  its 
solution.  As  our  knowledge  of  the  mental  and  physical  capaci- 
ties of  individuals  increases,  and  as  our  recognition  of  social 
necessities  is  expanded,  we  shall  be  enabled  to  accommodate 
and  direct  educational  effort  toward  the  largest,  most  economi- 
cal and  efficient  ends. 

Throughout  whatever  recognition  and  knowledge  we  have 
had  in  the  past  of  the  values  derived  from  public  education,  and 
in  most  of  the  enthusiastic  efforts  to  increase  these  values,  the 
school  has  been  viewed  almost  entirely  as  a  producer  1  of  social 
efficiency.  While  not  entirely  disregarded,  the  thought  of 
public  education  as  a  consumer  of  social  energy  has  not  yet 
been  developed  in  a  manner  likely  to  give  a  clear  and  accurate 
notion  of  its  economic  cost.  The  vast  and  increasing  expendi- 
tures for  the  support  of  public  education  are,  however,  directing 
more  and  more  the  attention  of  publicists  and  those  charged 
with  the  administration  of  the  affairs  of  the  public  schools  to 
the  necessity  of  the  possession  of  more  reliable  and  accurate 
knowledge  concerning  the  cost  of  this  education  we  have 
established. 

1  I  recognize  the  objections  to  the  use  of  this  term  producer.  Its 
real  meaning  will,  I  think,  be  readily  comprehended.  Its  use  enables  me 
to  carry  out  what  seems  to  be  a  valuable  analogy  from  economic  science. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  5 

While  the  real  cost  of  public  education  is,  in  some  respects, 
as  difficult  of  accurate  measurement  as  are  its  results,  there  are 
certain  objective  phenomena  by  the  measurement  of  which  a 
more  or  less  accurate  statement  of  the  consuming  capacity  of  the 
public  schools  can  be  made.  Even  when  limited  to  the  amount 
of  public  money  devoted  to  public  education — and  this  by  no 
means  represents  the  total  cost  of  such  education1 — our  present- 
day  notions  of  the  cost  of  education  are  of  a  crude  and  inac- 
curate kind.  It  might  be  said  in  all  truth  that  we  do  not  know 
how  much  we  are  paying  for  public  education,  in  spite  of  the 
overwhelming  mass  of  apparently  reliable  information  and 
statistics.  The  commonplace  of  "millions  spent"  and  "millions 
spending"  has  benumbed  our  economic  sense,  and  that  clown 
of  statistics — the  average — has  been  made  to  perform  grotesque 
antics  to  please  and  win  the  applause  of  both  the  unthinking 
and  those  inspired  with  ulterior  motives. 

Whenever  doubt  has  arisen  concerning  the  effective  working 
of  our  educational  plan,  its  shortcomings  have  been  felt  in  an 
indefinite  and  vague  manner.  Not  infrequently  reforms  are 
attempted  through  the  transformation  of  the  mode  of  legal 
and  administrative  control,  or  by  means  of  remodelled  cur- 
ricula. In  the  main,  however,  one  or  the  other  of  two  stand- 
ard remedies  is  generally  proposed  to-day  to  remove  any 
recognized  weaknesses  of  the  plan  and  to  provide  for  its  rapidly 
expanding  activities  and  functions:  better  prepared  and  more 
able  teachers,  and  a  more  generous  and  adequate  support.  In 
our  present  social  conditions  the  application  of  the  first  of  these 
is  recognized  as  being  conditioned  by  the  second.  "More 
money"  has  become  the  banner  word  of  those  who,  either 
through  honesty  of  conviction  or  an  unweening  enthusiasm, 
hope  to  have  realized  within,  and  from,  the  public  school  those 
ideals  and  results  consistent  with  its  primary  importance  as  a 
conservator  of  national  efficiency.2 

Public  Education  and  Public  Taxation.  —  However  well- 
grounded  in  our  American  polity  the  idea  of  public  taxation  for 

1  See  Giddings,  F.  H.,  The  Legal  Aspect  of  Compulsory  Education, 
Proceedings,  National  Educational  Association,  1905,  for  pertinent  sugges- 
tions regarding  the  real  social  and  economic  cost  of  compulsory  education. 

2  See  Eliot,  C.  W.,  More  Money  for  the  Public  Scliools,  for  a  virile  and 
timely  statement  concerning  this  point. 


6  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

the  support  of  public  education  has  become,  perhaps  the  present 
most  fundamental  condition  of  the  growth  and  efficiency  of  this 
distinctly  American  institution  is  the  question  of  the  rational 
limitation  of  the  amount  of  public  money  to  be  devoted  to  it. 
This  question  is  assuming  a  wider  public  interest  each  year. 
Aside  from  the  increased  demands  for  support  due  to  mere 
numerical  growth,  the  extension  of  the  recognized  function  of 
the  public  school,  and  the  numerous  well-directed  efforts  to 
improve  its  effectiveness  through  the  provision  of  more  ade- 
quate facilities,  have  served  to  increase  many-fold  the  financial 
burdens  necessary  to  the  institution  and  success  of  the  reforms. 
To  say  that  the  burden  has  been  borne  ungrudgingly  by  the 
people  would  be  a  mere  commonplace.  To  assume  that  twice 
the  burden  could  be  borne  might  be  presumptuous. 

The  influence  of  persistent  bodies  of  teachers,1  who  have 
come  to  the  realization  of  the  idea  that  justice  and  adequacy  of 
teachers'  salaries  and  of  school  support  will  come  only  through 
justice  and  equality  in  taxation,  and  of  certain  definite  studies 
and  investigations 2  of  the  financial  conditions  surrounding 
the  public  schools  in  various  parts  of  the  country,  has  stimu- 
lated both  professional  and  public  activity  regarding  the  prob- 
lem of  the  financial  support  of  the  public  schools. 

Summary. — The  dominating  aspects  of  educational  thought 
and  activity  to-day  may  be  characterized  as  the  scientific  and 
the  economic.  Broadly  speaking,  the  first  of  these  is  inclusive 
of  the  second.  The  economic  aspect  is  becoming,  however, 
more  and  more  specialized  and  separable  from  the  scientific. 

1  The  recent  well-known  campaign  of  the  Chicago  Teachers'  Federa- 
tion is  an  example  of  such  activity,  perhaps  the  most  unique  in  American 
educational  history. 

2  Committee  on  Taxation  as  Related  to  Public  Education.  Appointed 
at  the  meeting  of  the  National  Educational  Association,  Minneapolis,  1902. 
(Proc.  N.  E.  A.,  p.  312.)  Final  report  submitted  at  meeting  of  National 
Educational  Association,  July,  1905  (86  pp.). 

Committee  on  Salaries,  Tenure,  and  Pensions  of  Public  School  Teachers 
in  the  United  States.  Appointed  at  the  meeting  of  the  National  Educa- 
tional Association,  Boston,  1903.  (Proc.  N.  E.  A.,  1903,  p.  308.)  Pre- 
liminary report.  (Proc.  N.  E.  A.,  1904,  pp.  370  ff.)  Final  report 
submitted  at  meeting  of  National  Educational  Association,  July,  1905 
(458  pp.)- 

Report  of  Committee  on  Taxation  and  Teachers'  Salaries.  Indiana 
State  Teachers  Association,  1904  (126  pp.). 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  7 

In  the  life  of  a  people  an  organized  system  of  public  education 
may  be  viewed  as  a  producer  of  social  efficiency  and  as  a  con- 
sumer of  social  energy.  The  most  important  problem  before 
American  education  to-day  is  that  of  adequate  support.  There 
it  needed,  however,  fuller  and  better  knowledge  of  the  actual 
consuming  capacity  of  public  education  before  the  present  sup- 
port can  be  intelligently  increased. 

Aim  of  the  Present  Study. — The  form  of  all  education,  and  of 
all  public  education  in  particular,  is  cast  in  a  mould  of  social 
ideals.  In  turn,  it  acts  to  shape  new  ideals  of  new  generations. 
The  influence  and  social  value  of  these  ideals  cannot  be  readily 
subjected  to  a  process  of  scientific  measurement.  On  the  other 
hand,  it  is  possible  to  state  in  more  or  less  exact  terms  some  of 
those  characteristics  which  mark  contemporaneous  public  edu- 
cation as  a  consumer  of  social  energy,  valuing  social  energy  in 
terms  of  the  amount  of  public  funds  given  over  to  the  support 
of  public  education. 

It  is  toward  this  economic  aspect  of  education  that  the 
following  study  will  be  devoted,  particularly  as  concerns  the 
fiscal  position  of  public  education  in  American  cities. 

II.     Public  Education  and  the  American  City  1 

Public  Education  and  the  Scope  of  Modem  Municipal  Needs 
and  Activities. — Undoubtedly,  the  most  significant  social  phe- 
nomenon of  the  last  half  century  has  been  the  concentration 
of  population  in  urban  centres.2  As  a  direct  product  of  modern 
industrial  development,  the  city  has  given  rise  to  a  multitude  of 
new  and  unsolved  social  and  political  problems.  Without  un- 
due exaggeration  it  may  be  said  that  the  social  and  political 
problems  of  the  nation  are  becoming  localized  in  those  of  the 
cities.  Among  these  problems,  not  the  least  in  far-reaching 
and  fundamental  importance  is  that  of  public  education.     How 

1  The  most  satisfactory  study  we  have  upon  this  topic  is  Rollins, 
Frank,  School  Administration  in  Municipal  Government,  in  Columbia 
University  Contributions  to  Philosophy,  Psychology,  and  Education,  vol. 
xi.:  see  also  Goodnow,  F.  J.,  City  Government  in  the  Unite!  States,  Chap. 
XL,  pp.  262-273. 

2  See  Weber,  A.  F.,  The  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  Nineteenth  Century, 
Columbia  University  Studies  in  History,  Economics ,  and  Public  Law,  vol. 
xi.,  for  a  comprehensive  treatment  of  this  subject. 


8  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

to  organize  and  administer  a  scheme  of  public  education  which 
will  provide  an  adequate  training  and  instruction,  both  in  kind 
and  amount,  for  the  children  of  the  cities,  has  become,  and  is 
yearly  becoming  more  so,  a  paramount  social  issue. 

Education,  however,  presents  but  one  of  the  problems  of 
modern  municipal  life.  Not  only  are  the  children  to  be  edu- 
cated; property  and  life  must  be  protected  against  crime,  fire, 
and  disease ;  an  ample  and  uncontaminated  water  supply  must 
be  maintained;  ease  and  safety  of  communication  must  be 
established;  the  needy,  the  unfortunate,  and  the  dependent 
must  be  provided  for;  a  social  responsibility  for  the  cultural  wel- 
fare of  all  individuals  must  be  recognized;  above  all,  has  come  the 
demand  for  a  form  of  administrative  control  at  once  responsive 
to  the  public  mind  and  likewise  efficient  and  conscious  of  a 
personal  responsibility.  Thus  there  have  developed,  co-ordinate 
with  education,  the  almost  equally  important  requisites  of 
municipal  life — efficient  administrative  systems,  police  and 
fire  departments,  courts  of  justice,  jails  and  workhouses,  health 
and  inspection  departments,  street,  sewer,  lighting  and  water 
departments,  hospitals,  parks,  and  gardens — the  list  might 
be  expanded  many-fold,  so  extended  have  become  the  needs 
and  the  scope  of  modern  municipal  life  and  activity. 

Increased  Importance  of  Municipal  Fiscal  Problems. — For  the 
satisfaction  of  its  local  needs  the  municipal  corporation  has  been 
enabled  to  utilize,  with  few  exceptions  *  and  with  numerous  re- 
strictions,2 the  right  of  local  taxation  conferred  upon  it  by  the 
state.  The  history  of  most  American  cities  might  be  reflected 
in  an  account  of  their  financial  and  taxing  experience.  Their 
life,  prosperity,  and  intensive  development  have  been  bound  up 
in  the  official  wisdom  and  honesty  employed  in  the  use  of  their 
public  funds. 

The  corollary  of  the  expansion  of  municipal  life  has  been  the 
remarkable  increase  in  municipal  revenues,  expenditures,  and 
debts,  the  latter  to-day  exceeding  in  magnitude  those  of  the 
Federal  Government.3     These    revenues,  in   the  main  derived 

1  For  example,  the  prohibition  against  local  taxation  for  public  educa- 
tion as  has  existed  in  several  southern  states. 

2  Minimum  and  maximum  tax  levies,  limitations  in  the  taxation  of 
corporate  and  franchise  values,  etc. 

3  Aggregate  of  interest  and  non-interest  bearing  debt  of  the  United 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  9 

from  direct  taxation,  have  laid  upon  property  as  the  chief  sub- 
ject of  taxation  a  burden  which  causes  even  the  enthusiast  to 
hesitate  in  his  demands  for  the  continued  expansion  and  inten- 
sion of  those  social  activities  that  are  already,  or  that  are  thought 
fit  to  be,  subject  to  public  control  and  utilization. 

Committed  as  we  are  in  this  democracy  to  a  system  of  public 
education  supported  almost  entirely  from  local  taxation,  the 
solution  of  the  educational  problem,  in  its  final  analysis,  has 
become  largely  a  matter  of  adequate  financial  support. 

State  Control  of  Municipal  Education. — The  American  city 
has  not  developed  independent  of  state  legislation  and  govern- 
ment control.1  In  fact,  under  the  influence  of  perverse  political 
methods,  on  part  of  city  and  state  alike,  the  American  city  has 
been  brought  under  state  domination.  "Local  autonomy"  has 
become  a  figure  of  speech  in  many  respects.  However,  it  is 
over  education  that  the  authority  of  the  state  has  been  exer- 
cised with  increasing  force.2  In  the  financial,  as  well  as  the 
political  history  and  development  of  cities  in  America,  educa- 
tion has  held  a  somewhat  peculiar  position.  In  American 
polity,  education  has  always  been  considered  as  a  social  activity, 
the  ultimate  control  and  administration  of  which  was  properly 
a  state  function.  This  has  been  and  necessarily  needs  to  con- 
tinue to  be  a  foundation  principle  of  our  educational  scheme. 

Partly  as  a  heritage  of  our  early  semi-ecclesiastical  control  of 
education,  and  partly  as  a  result  of  an  early  untutored  political 
experience  in  the  direction  of  educational  affairs,  local  educa- 
tional jurisdictions  have  grown  up  independent  of  the  municipal 
jurisdictions,  and  frequently,  when  territorially  coincident  with 

States  Government  Dec.    1,   1902   (Monthly  Summary  of  Commerce  and 
Finance  of  the   United  States,  Treasury  Department,   December,    1902, 

P-  843) $i,3n>574.o59. 

Total  debt  obligation  of  cities  (160)  in  United  States,  above  25,000 
population,  at  close  of  fiscal  year  1902  (Bulletin  No.  20,   1905,  United 

States  Bureau  of  the  Census) $1,312,268,324. 

Of  the  latter  amount  $1,172,798,788  was  in  the  form  of  municipal  bonds. 

1  Goodnow,  F.  J.,  City  Government  in  the  United  States.  Chap.  IV., 
The  Position  of  the  City  in  the  United  States,  pp.  69-88;  Chap.  V.,  State 
Control  of  Cities.  Also  his  Municipal  Problems,  Chap.  II,  pp.  27-32, 
63-89. 

2  Webster,  R.  H.,  Recent  Centralizing  Tendencies  in  State  Educa- 
tional Administration,  gives  a  very  satisfactory  exposition  of  the  present 
conditions. 


io  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

the  municipality,  possess  powers  and  authorities  apart  from  the 
local  civil  administrative  system.  Thus  the  study  of  education, 
as  a  municipal  activity,  has  been  rendered  extremely  difficult. 
Especially  complicated  has  become  the  fiscal  aspect  of  educa- 
tion. In  many  states,  boards  of  education  in  cities  possess  the 
power  to  levy  and  collect  taxes,  and  to  expend  their  funds  wholly 
independent  of  the  municipal  authority. 

The  most  important  element  in  this  complication  has  been 
the  system  of  state  subsidies  of  local  education,  which  has  grown 
up  coincident  with  the  extension  of  the  control  of  the  state 
over  all  education  within  its  borders.  The  state  subsidy,  con- 
structed as  an  instrument  for  the  encouragement  of  the  de- 
velopment of  public  education,  and  for  the  equalization  of 
educational  opportunity,  serves  in  many  respects  to  hide  from 
our  view  the  exact  nature  and  extent  of  local  adaptation  and 
responsibility  for  support  of  public  education.1 

Through  a  combination  of  the  influences  arising  from  the 
special  character  of  education  itself,  through  the  frequently 
demonstrated  necessity  of  removing  educational  control  from 
the  rule  of  partisan  politics,  and  through  the  exercise  of  the 
control  of  the  state  through  its  subsidies,  there  has  been  in  the 
cities  of  most  of  our  states  a  tendency  toward  the  isolation, 
either  artificial,  or  real  and  legal,  of  education  in  the  field  of 
municipal  activity.  In  general  this  isolation  in  the  past  has 
been  a  necessity  for  the  development  of  public  education  amid 
the  ofttimes  antagonistic  political,  social,  or  religious  forces. 

Fiscal  Isolation  of  Municipal  Education. — One  of  the  chief 
supplementary  results  of  this  administrative  isolation  of  public 
education  in  cities  has  been  a  sort  of  fiscal  isolation.  Statistics 
relative  to  the  cost  of  education  have  been  eagerly  sought  by 
those  interested  in  this  economic  aspect  of  educational  adminis- 
tration. Nowhere  has  any  careful  attempt  been  made  to  deter- 
mine the  true  fiscal  position  of  education  in  our  cities,  by  which 
is  meant  the  relation  which  educational  revenues  and  expen- 

1  The  complex  systems  for  the  support  of  public  education  in  force  in 
most  of  our  states  have  rendered  extremely  difficult  the  obtaining  of  a 
correct  notion  regarding  the  relation  between  the  state  and  local  support. 
The  statistics  of  the  receipts  of  public  schools  of  cities,  compiled  annually 
by  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  wherein  it  is  sought  to 
differentiate  state,  county,  and  local  receipts  (Table  VIII.,  pp.  1446-1458 
of  the  Report  for  1903)  are  exceedingly  inaccurate  and  misleading. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  n 

ditures  bear  to  those  other  revenues  and  expenditures  deemed 
essential  to  the  conditions  of  municipal  life.  The  determination 
of  these  relationships  appears  to  be  a  prerequisite  to  a  more 
exact  knowledge  of  educational  finance  itself,  as  well  as  to  the 
extension  of  our  present  ideas  relating  to  the  social  position 
and  economic  importance  of  the  public  school  in  the  newer 
conditions  of  urban  life. 

Unity  of  Municipal  Life. — There  is  growing  to-day,  though, 
a  new  conception  of  the  place  and  function  of  education  within 
the  organic  life  of  the  municipality.  The  central  notion  of  this 
later  concept  is  that  of  the  unification  of  the  various  forces  which 
go  to  make  up  the  municipal  life,  and  of  the  elimination  of  those 
forces  tending  to  disintegrate  the  essential  elements  of  the 
wholeness  of  the  community  life.  This  thought  of  unity 
is,  as  yet,  in  the  nature  of  an  ideal.  Prevailing  political 
methods,  traditional  prejudices,  and  social  inertness  must  be 
overcome  and  a  keen  sense  of  civic  obligation  developed  be- 
fore this  unity  can  be  realized.  The  doctrine  which  says 
that,  "one  of  the  chief  dangers  which  menaces  the  security 
of  our  citizenship  and  the  high  purposes  of  the  American  state, 
in  my  judgment,  is  the  mingling  of  municipal  and  educa- 
tional functions,"  i  or  that  "while  the  state  must  accomplish  its 
work  for  education  largely  through  municipal  agents,  it  must 
also  prevent,  so  far  as  possible,  any  mixing  of  local  politics  with 
educational  interests.  To  this  end  the  development  of  education 
must  be  made  as  independent  as  possible  of  other  departments  of 
municipal  government, "2  must  cease  to  be  a  working  principle 
if  our  modern  city  life  is  to  attain  that  efficiency  demanded  and 
desirable  for  real  social  progress. 

Education,  although  primarily  of  state  concern,  is  none  the 
less  a  municipal  responsibility,  the  complete  realization  of  which 
will  come  only  when  it  has  been  assigned  its  proper  place  within 
the  scope  of  the  whole  municipal  life. 

1  Draper,  A.  S.,  Function  of  the  State  Touching  Education,  in  Ed.  Rev., 
xv.  (1898),  p.  109. 

2  Rollins,  Frank.  Op.  cit.,  p.  18.  The  italics  are  mine.  In  one  sense 
the  first  statement  of  the  quotation  is  true.  It  is  difficult,  however,  to 
find  justification  from  the  arguments  adduced  for  the  general  conclusions 
which  Dr.  Rollins  reaches  regarding  the  absolute  supremacy  of  the  state 
over  municipal  education. 


12  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

III.     Basis  and  Method  of  Investigation 

At  the  commencement  of  this  study,  the  two  factors  of  most 
importance  to  be  determined  were  the  basis  upon  which,  and 
the  method  by  which,  the  investigation  was  to  be  conducted. 
The  first  would  define  the  scope  and  variety  of  the  data  sub- 
jected to  analysis,  a  matter  of  no  small  significance  in  this  par- 
ticular case.  Through  the  latter,  it  was  desired  to  get  beyond 
the  unsatisfactory  and  limited  conclusions  attached  to  current 
observations  of  the  financial  aspect  of  municipal  school  ad- 
ministration. 

Financial  Statistics  of  Cities. — As  the  initial  aim  was  to  ob- 
tain a  view  of  public  education  in  cities  through  the  perspective 
of  their  total  fiscal  activity,  the  first  requisite  was  to  obtain  the 
statistical  data  reflecting  this  activity.  This  was  thought  to 
be  contained  in  the  ordinary  official  municipal  reports. 

Without  much  difficulty  there  were  obtained  the  annual 
financial  reports  of  120  of  the  156  towns  and  cities  in  the  states 
of  New  York,  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  Massachusetts,  Ver- 
mont, New  Hampshire,  and  Maine,  possessing  over  8000  popu- 
lation, according  to  the  Census  of  1900.  This  particular 
territory  was  selected  because  of  its  approximate  homogeneous 
character,  and  because  of  the  recognized  custom  of  most  of  the 
towns  and  cities  contained  therein  of  issuing  for  distribution 
annual  reports  covering  the  scope  of  the  various  municipal 
activities.  The  promptness  and  courtesy  of  the  various  officials 
to  whom  the  requests  for  information  were  sent  are  partial  evi- 
dences of  the  high  plane  of  official  responsibility  maintained  in 
these  cities.  This  was  notably  true  in  the  case  of  the  towns 
and  cities  of  Massachusetts. 

A  preliminary  survey  of  the  total  number  of  reports  dis- 
closed the  superficial  and  unsatisfactory  character,  at  least  for 
the  intended  purpose,  of  the  financial  data  contained  in  most  of 
them.  They  varied  in  excellence  from  the  complete  detailed 
statements  of  the  work  and  financial  operations  of  each  city  de- 
partment, as  for  example  those  of  Cambridge,  Springfield,  New- 
ton, Boston,  Manchester,  and  Rochester,  to  a  bare  enumeration 
of  the  municipal  expenditures,  listing  the  warrants  in  the  order 
in  which  they  were  paid  by  the  city  treasurer,  together  with  the 
amount  and  name  of  the  payee.     The  only  common  term  of  the 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  13 

reports  seemed  to  be  the  effort  to  display  official  honesty  in 
the  handling  of  public  moneys. 

Some  two  hundred  hours  were  spent  in  a  thorough  examina- 
tion of  twenty  of  the  best  and  most  complete  of  the  reports. 
However,  the  variation  in  the  completeness,  and  in  the  systems 
of  classification,  accounting,  and  reporting  of  municipal  receipts 
and  expenditures,  presented  very  many  obstacles  to  a  satis- 
factory comparative  study  on  the  basis  of  the  financial  data  con- 
tained in  even  these  reports. 

Recourse  was  now  had  to  the  financial  information  con- 
cerning cities  published  in  the  bulletins  of  the  United  States 
Department  of  Labor.1  This  statistical  data  had  been  gath- 
ered in  compliance  with  an  act  passed  during  the  second  ses- 
sion of  the  Fifty-fifth  Congress,  by  which,  "the  Commissioner 
of  Labor  is  authorized  to  compile  and  publish  annually,  as  a 
part  of  the  Bulletin  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  an  abstract 
of  the  main  features  of  the  official  statistics  of  the  cities  of  the 
United  States  having  over  30,000  population."  2  In  the  intro- 
duction to  the  first  report  issued  under  the  provisions  of  this 
act,  September,  1899,  the  then  Commissioner  of  Labor,  Carroll 
D.  Wright,  has  given  an  insight  into  the  difficulties  attendant 
upon  the  gathering  of  the  statistics  published: 

The  act  of  Congress  .  .  .  apparently  contemplated  a 
compilation  of  the  official  statistics  of  the  various  cities  of  30,000 
population  and  over  from  data  to  be  furnished  to  the  Com- 
missioner of  Labor  by  the  cities  themselves,  such  as,  for  in- 
stance, were  included  in  their  official  annual  reports,  etc.  Steps 
were  taken,  therefore,  to  obtain  such  reports  from  the  officials 
of  the  various  cities,  and  many  reports  were  promptly  received. 
In  a  number  of  instances,  however,  no  reports  were  received, 
even  though  repeated  efforts  were  made  to  secure  them.  In 
some  cases  the  Department  was  informed  that  no  printed  reports 
were  available,  while  in  other  cases  no  reply  whatever  was  re- 
ceived in  answer  to  its  requests.  An  examination  of  the  reports 
received  showed  that  very  few  facts  were  reported  uniformly 
by  all  of  the  cities,  and  that  even  the  important  financial  state- 
ments were  presented  in  so  many  different  forms  as  to  preclude 
such  classification  of  the  various  items  as  seemed  necessary  for  a 
satisfactory  comparison. 

1  No.  24,  September,  1899;  No.  30,  September,  1900;  No.  36,  Sep- 
tember, 1901;  No.  42,  September,  1902. 

2  Bulletin  No.  24,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  September, 
1899,  p.  625. 


14  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

It  was  believed  that  in  order  to  be  valuable  for  comparison 
and  for  other  purposes  the  various  items  relating  to  the  govern- 
mental, financial,  and  other  conditions  of  these  cities  should  be 
reported  uniformly  and  accurately.  Even  had  the  Department 
been  furnished  with  the  reports  for  all  of  the  cities  within  the 
limits  of  the  investigation,  the  many  difficulties  encountered  in 
a  tentative  effort  with  the  reports  already  received  led  to  the 
conclusion  that  uniformity  and  accuracy  could  be  secured  only 
by  sending  the  special  agents  of  the  Department  to  the  cities 
for  the  data  desired.  A  schedule  of  inquiries  was  accordingly 
prepared  and  the  work  taken  up  by  the  agents  of  the  Depart- 
ment at  once.  The  utmost  interest  in  the  investigation  was 
manifested  in  nearly  every  city  by  the  officials  who  were  visited, 
and  they  gave  freely  their  time  in  compiling  the  data  desired  and 
in  every  way  assisted  the  Department  in  the  work.  In  many 
cases  the  methods  of  bookkeeping  in  vogue  made  a  uniform 
classification  of  financial  items,  as  called  for  by  the  schedules  of 
the  Department,  very  difficult  and  required  much  time  and 
labor. 

Under  the  provisions  of  the  above  mentioned  act,  four  annual 
bulletins  of  the  statistics  of  cities  were  issued  by  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor,  the  last  one  being  distributed  in  September, 
1902,  and  containing  the  data  for  the  year  1901.  Upon  the 
creation  of  the  Department  of  Commerce  and  Labor  as  a  cab- 
inet department  in  1903,  the  work  of  gathering  and  publishing 
these  municipal  statistics  was  transferred  to  the  permanent 
Bureau  of  the  Census. 

The  data  presented  in  Bulletins  36  and  42  of  the  Department 
of  Labor,  issued  in  September  of  1901  and  1902,  respectively, 
have  been  made  the  basis  of  the  first  portion  of  this  study,1 
The  last  two  of  the  series  of  four  bulletins  were  selected  because 
of  their  evident  superiority  in  completeness  and  accuracy  over 
the  first  two. 

The  reasons  for  selecting  these  data  are  as  follows.  First, 
aside  from  the  incomplete  and  otherwise  unsatisfactory  statistics 
of  a  similar  nature  presented  in  the  publications  of  the  Tenth  and 
Eleventh  Censuses,  they  comprised  the  only  source  of  either 
moderately  complete  or  fairly  reliable  material  such  as  it  was 

1  This  study  was  begun  and  completed  before  the  data  of  the  financial 
operations  of  cities  for  1902  and  1903,  published  in  Bulletin  20,  Bureau 
of  the  Census  (September,  1905),  became  available.  The  recent  and  more 
complete  data  gathered  by  the  Bureau  of  the  Census  has  been  made  the 
basis  of  the  second  portion  of  the  study.     See  Sections  X.  and  XI. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  15 

necessary  to  employ  in  the  present  instance.  The  almost  over- 
whelming obstacles  and  prohibitive  expense  preclude  the  gather- 
ing of  data  of  this  variety  and  scope  through  individual  effort. 
Second,  because  they  pertained  to  all  of  the  cities  of  the  indicated 
population  class,  an  element  altogether  too  frequently  disre- 
garded, especially  in  comparative  educational  statistics. 

There  is  also  a  secondary  reason  for  subjecting  such  data  as 
these  to  a  critical  examination ;  for  by  such  examination  their 
value  or  uselessness  for  scientific  purposes  may  be  demonstrated. 
Municipal  statistics,  even  when  gathered  through  the  agency  of 
the  Federal  Government  and  with  undoubted  motive  of  making 
a  valuable  contribution  to  municipal  and  economic  sciences, 
should  be  subjected  to  some  process  of  interpretation  beyond 
that  of  mere  gross  and  doubtful  comparisons,  if  the  final  and 
more  valuable  purpose  is  to  be  attained.1 

Method  of  Statistical  Treatment. — Apart  from  the  details  of 
treatment  recorded  in  the  following  pages,  it  is  desired  to  em- 
phasize here  the  two  fundamental  principles  underlying  the 
method  pursued. 

The  first  is  the  principle  of  inclusion.  That  is,  with  the  data 
for  1900  and  190 1,  all  cities  possessing  30,000  or  more  population 
have  been  included.2  The  immediate  aim  has  been  to  present 
some  of  the  fiscal  aspects  and  relationships  of  education  in  the 
American  city,  regarded  as  a  type. 

The  second  is  the  principle  of  relativity.  In  more  than  one 
way  has  public  education  become  isolated  as  a  social  institution ; 
and  this  has  been  the  more  so  with  such  of  the  features  as  are 
usually  presented  by  financial  statistics.  The  statistics  of 
public  school  enrolment  or  attendance  of  any  particular  city,  for 

1  "No  attempt  has  been  made  to  interpret  and  compare  the  statistics 
here  presented.  In  this  respect  the  Bureau  again  follows  the  precedent 
of  the  Department  of  Labor.  But  it  is  believed  that  after  the  inquiry  has 
been  carried  on  for  a  longer  period  and  the  methods  of  collecting  the 
statistics  further  perfected,  the  time  will  be  ripe  for  a  study  of  the  data, 
which  may  lead  to  reliable  and  interesting  comparisons  and  deductions." 
— {Bulletin  20,   Bureau  of  the  Census,  1905,  p.  4.) 

2  This  is  not  wholly  true,  inasmuch  as  three  of  the  135  cities  were 
necessarily  excluded  from  consideration,  owing  to  partial  or  total  absence 
of  essential  data.  An  adequate  note  of  these  exceptions  appears  in  the 
proper  place,  see  pp.  20  and  24  (Foot  note  (6)).  No  attempt  has  been 
made  to  select  cities  for  study  on  the  grounds  of  any  presupposed  or  real, 
positive  or  negative,  excellence,  either  educational  or  otherwise. 


1 6  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

instance,  are  not  valuable  in  themselves  as  social  statistics, 
unless  there  is  known  also  the  number  of  adults  in  the  commun- 
ity and  the  number  of  pupils  who  do  not  attend  school  or  who 
attend  schools  other  than  public  schools.  A  statement  of  the 
salary  standards  of  public  school  teachers  in  the  different  cities 
of  the  country  has  no  particular  meaning,  unless  accompanied 
by  some  notion  of  the  standards  maintained  in  other  pro- 
fessional work  and  of  the  standards  of  living  in  the  various 
communities.  Thus,  too,  with  the  data  of  educational  ex- 
penditures as  a  whole.  Our  entire  list  of  concepts  regarding 
these  factors  has  been  formulated  by  viewing  educational 
activity  almost  entirely  apart  from  the  other  essential  activities 
of  modern  municipal  life.  In  view  of  the  present  development 
and  increasing  demands  of  public  education  in  American  cities, 
there  is  need  for  some  scientific  study  of  its  cost  in  relation  to 
that  of  other  municipal  functions.  The  use  of  the  Pearson 
Coefficient  of  Correlation  for  stating  these  relationships  as  they 
have  been  found  to  exist  may,  by  some,  be  thought  to  savor 
somewhat  of  over-refinement.  In  reply  to  this  anticipated 
objection  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  owing  to  the  lack  of  the 
application  of  the  more  refined  statistical  methods  to  the  data 
of  educational  organization  and  practices  that  has  rendered 
both  useless  and  misleading  much  of  the  so-called  statistical 
material.  The  use  of  such  a  factor  as  the  Pearson  Coefficient 
has  been  found  to  be  of  indispensable  service  in  the  realm  of  the 
biological  and  social  sciences.  Its  definite  application  to  the 
fiscal  problem  of  education  1  may  mark  a  step  in  advance  and 
provide  us  with  an  efficient  instrument  for  testing  the  validity 
or  falsity  of  our  present  notions  and  standards. 

IV.     Character,  Arrangement,  and  Preliminary  Manipu- 
lation of  Data 

Data  of  Expenditures  for  Municipal  Maintenance  and  Oper- 
ation for  igoo  and  igoi. — Tables  XX.  and  XXII.  of  Bulletins  36 
and  42,  respectively,  of  the  United  States  Department  of  Labor 
contain  the  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  operation  of  the 

1  The  adequacy  of  the  Pearson  Coefficient  in  this  respect  has  been 
admirably  demonstrated  by  Dr.  George  D.  Strayer  in  his  recent  study, 
"City  School  Expenditures,"  Teachers  College  Record,  Vol.  VI.,  pp.  107- 
209. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  17 

governmental  activities  of  the  135  !  American  cities  possessing  a 
population  of  30,000  or  over  according  to  the  Census  of  1900. 
These  expenditures  are  classified  under  the  following  headings : 
(1)  police  department;  (2)  police  courts,  jails,  workhouses,  re- 
formatories, etc.;  (3)  fire  department;  (4)  health  department; 
(5)  hospitals,  asylums,  almshouses,  and  other  charities;  (6) 
schools;  (7)  libraries,  art  galleries,  museums,  etc.;  (8)  parks 
and  gardens;  (9)  sewers;  (10)  municipal  lighting;  (11)  street 
cleaning;  (12)  street  sprinkling2;  (13)  other  street  expendi- 
tures, (14)  garbage  removal;  (15)  interest  on  debt;  (16) 
waterworks;  (17)  gas-works;  (18)  electric -light  plants;  (19) 
docks  and  wharves;  (20)  ferries  and  bridges;  (21)  markets; 
(22)  cemeteries,  (23)  bath  houses  and  bathing  pools  and 
beaches;  (24)  other  items.  Accompanying  the  tables  are 
numerous  notes  in  reference  to  peculiar  characteristics  or  ar- 
rangements of  the  data  for  particular  cities. 

Naturally,  in  view  of  the  difference  in  size,  location,  and 
standards  of  municipal  life  of  the  various  cities,  the  expendi- 
ture for  each  of  the  above  items  is  not  to  be  found  for  every 
city.  It  was  not  possible,  for  example,  in  many  cities  to  separate 
the  expenditures  for  the  police  department  from  those  for 
police  courts,  jails,  etc. ;  in  some,  jails  and  police  courts  are 
maintained  at  county  or  state  expense.  Many  include  ex- 
pense for  garbage  removal  under  health  department,  or  possibly 
under  streets;  many  keep  no  separate  accounts  for  street 
cleaning,  street  sprinkling,  sewers,  etc.,  all  of  these  items  being 
included  in  a  general  item  of  street  expenditures.  However,  a 
close  examination  of  the  tables  revealed  a  sufficient  degree  of 
completeness  in  the  items  with  which  it  was  desired  to  work. 

For  statistical  purposes,  and  even  for  a  clear  insight  into  the 
financial  operations  of  cities,  the  system  of  classification  em- 
ployed in  the  arrangement  of  these  data  is  open  to  serious  ob- 
jection. This  whole  subject  of  accounting  and  classification  of 
public  revenues  and  expenditures,  at  least  as  far  as  such  in- 
vestigations as  this  are  concerned,  is  taken  up  at  length  and  in 
greater  detail  in  a  later  section.3 

1  Bulletin  42  contains  137  cities.  The  135  cities  common  to  both 
bulletins  were  selected  in  order  to  give  data  for  two  years  for  all  cities 
considered. 

2  In  Bulletin  36  items  11  and  12  are  included  as  one  item. 

3  Section  VII,  p.  46  ff. 


Table 


Showing  percentages  of  total  amount  expended  for  maintenance  and  operation 

All  cities  in  the  United  States 


. 

u  o 

a 

<L> 
| 

|rt 

a 

o 

V 

6 

6£ 

3  ° 

-2  a 
beg 

ZB 

a 
■d 

si 

a 

5 

Vh 

J2 

1 

S  <8 

to 

3p 

City. 

c8 

a 

B 

o 

a! 

ft 
o 
T3 

-  3 
«  o 

to  3 

>d 

(3 

"<3 

T3 

u 

a 

03  "5 

S. 

•n6 

a! 

to 

ft 

a> 

CJ 

O 

■d 

a 

.5 

73 

o  ^ 

*o 
o 

"J   to 

J5.8 

as 

3 

'3 
9 

fa 

a, 

fa 

W 

in 

W 

3 

fa 

W 

§ 

1 

New  York,  N.  Y.... 

10.15 

.791 

4.66 

.924 

4.66 

14.9 

.555 

1.72 

.648 

2.45 

2 

Chicago,  111 

19.30 

1.460 

8.30 

.878 

.04 

31.8 

.894 

3.30 

2.00 

2.19 

3 

Philadelphia,  Pa.. .  . 

14.30 

2.640 

5.02 

1.480 

2.49 

17.1 

1.33 

2.63 

.432 

5.75 

4 

St.  Louis,  Mo 

17.80 

1.270 

8.01 

1.420 

6.14 

16.8 

.453 

1.29 

1.12 

5.72 

5 

Boston,  Mass 

8.66 

6.660 

6.26 

.824 

6.16 

15.4 

1.61 

2.50 

1.88 

3.77 

6 

Baltimore,  Md 

11.20 

2.770 

5.84 

.995 

4.07 

15.4 

.034 

3.29 

.418 

5.22 

7 

Cleveland,  Ohio 

8.64 

1.910 

9.83 

1.540 

2.73 

23.7 

1.65 

.786 

.694 

5.15 

8 

Buffalo,  N.  Y 

13.10 

.406 

11.00 

.725 

2.60 

19.1 

1.65 

3.21 

.197 

5.79 

9 

San  Francisco,  Cal.  . 

14.80 

1.980 

9.88 

1.660 

3.82 

20.9 

.754 

2.66     ■ 

.824 

3.94 

10 

Cincinnati,  Ohio. .  .  . 

9.88 

1.840 

8.13 

.677 

3.45 

17.3 

1.13 

.611 

.696 

5.56 

11 

Pittsburg,  Pa 

8.07 

7.85 

1.310 

2.25 

13.5 

1.03 

2.88 

1.11 

4.75 

12 

New  Orleans,  La. . . . 

5.60 

1.330 

6.24 

1.190 

1.18 

10.4 

.173 

.205 

5.14 

13 

Detroit,  Mich 

16.00 

.341 

14.60 

1.030 

2.09 

23.9 

1.79 

2.89 

1.41 

14 

Milwaukee,  Wis 

9.32 

.507 

11.40 

.979 

.36 

21.1 

1.60 

1.86 

1.40 

6.25 

15 

Washington,  D.  C  . 

13.00 

6.790 

4.60 

1.350 

7.50 

21.7 

.140 

1.16 

1.39 

4.62 

16 

Newark,  N.  J 

8.55 

5.88 

1.190 

4.25 

18.3 

.713 

.0937 

1.27 

4.37 

17 

Jersey  City,  N.  J 

9.94 

.234 

5.28 

.176 

.73 

11.0 

.763 

.142 

.448 

3.99 

18 

9.77 

3.770 

8.96 

.301 

2.23 

17.9 

1.70 

.497 

4.87 

19 

Minneapolis,  Minn.  . 

7.36 

.537 

11.20 

.842 

3.03 

25.6 

1.43 

2.51 

1.26 

5.12 

20 

Providence,  R.  I.. . . 

9.56 

.120 

9.41 

.451 

1.06 

17.9 

.331 

1.19 

1.74 

8.04 

21 

Indianapolis,  Ind..  . 

9.02 

.160 

10.10 

722 

2.42 

33.2 

2.82 

4.48 

4.77 

6.73 

22 

Kansas  City,  Mo.. .  . 

11.90 

1.160 

11.90 

l'.960 

.16 

26.5 

.963 

2.39 

.424 

4.06 

23 

St.  Paul,  Minn 

7.70 

1.640 

8.25 

.377 

1.00 

19.0 

.615 

2.40 

,714 

8.06 

24 

Rochester,  N.  Y 

5.54 

.435 

6.68 

1.240 

3.15 

16.1 

.077 

.787 

.0997 

7.87 

25 

7.56 

.724 

8.35 

1.520 

1.87 

37.2 

1.27 

3.64 

.831 

5.88 

26 

Toledo,  Ohio 

6.96 

1.870 

7.57 

1.040 

(a) 

25.9 

.732 

1.17 

.872 

5.14 

27 

6.85 

6.67 

.763 

3.55 

17.3 

1.15 

1.37 

.754 

28 

Columbus,  Ohio 

7.05 

1.010 

9.56 

1.290 

.66 

22.5 

.522 

.535 

.658 

3.53 

29 

Worcester,  Mass 

5.65 

6.36 

1.110 

5.56 

21.2 

1.58 

1.04 

11.5 

4.61 

30 

7.57 

.735 

9.22 

.817 

5.86 

21.8 

1.93 

1.91 

5.90 

31 

New  Haven,  Conn... 

13.50 

.967 

9.78 

.538 

5.25 

26.6 

1.13 

1.41 

.798 

5.46 

32 

Paterson,  N.  J 

9.99 

.299 

10.10 

.584 

5.22 

25.2 

1.56 

2.44 

.954 

6.41 

33 

Fall  River,  Mass. .  .  . 

8.54 

7.57 

.933 

8.22 

18.1 

1.01 

.186 

6.01 

34 

St.  Joseph,  Mo 

12.60 

1.250 

12.90 

1.680 

.41 

28.4 

1.22 

1.14 

.825 

35 

Omaha,  Neb 

5.42 

.739 

8.11 

.539 

.30 

25.6 

1.29 

1.29 

1.93 

5.32 

36 

Los  Angeles,  Cal. .  .  . 

9.57 

.719 

9.14 

.914 

.29 

32.7 

1.39 

4.08 

.306 

3.27 

37 

Memphis,  Tenn 

11.20 

9.41 

7.460 

3.55 

15.9 

.698 

.229 

5.17 

38 

Scranton,  Pa 

8.05 

.519 

7.39 

.709 

48.6 

1.42 

.641 

1.03 

6.37 

39 

10.20 

8.69 

2.34 

9.27 

24.7 

1.05 

.959 

1.16 

6.56 

40 

Albany,  N.  Y 

11.40 

.461 

9.92 

.929 

4.81 

22.5 

.416 

2.56 

.124 

5.12 

41 

5.71 

4.17 

.922 

4.89 

21.4 

.700 

.928 

4.30 

3.25 

42 

Portland,  Ore 

4.94 

.305 

7.40 

.320 

.37 

22.9 

.807 

.366 

4.32 

43 

13.70 

10.60 

10.60 

4.83 

14.5 

.481 

1.38 

.586 

7.09 

44 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich. 

7.94 

.968 

11.40 

1.260 

2.12 

28.1 

.694 

2.16 

.739 

45 

7.84 

1.630 

8.65 

.584 

1.39 

32.7 

1.02 

.245 

.258 

5.19 

46 

8.38 

.337 

7.45 

.743 

3.24 

10.6 

.411 

3.02 

.152 

2.58 

47 

Nashville,  Tenn 

10.60 

.501 

10.20 

2.220 

2.55 

20.7 

.310 

.124 

5.63 

48 

Seattle,  Wash 

5.84 

.733 

7.94 

.934 

.38 

18.9 

1.06 

.501 

.305 

1.94 

49 

Hartford,  Conn 

9.24 

.652 

9.06 

.915 

6.64 

24.2 

.827 

1  83 

.591 

4.31 

50 

9.38 

6.51 

.505 

28.2 

.528 

1.77 

4.67 

9.08 

51 

Wilmington,  Del..  .  . 

12.40 

.614 

5.71 

1.200 

.13 

25.9 

1.04 

2.02 

.526 

7.06 

52 

Camden,  N.  J 

13.40 

.611 

10.20 

.476 

1.35 

24.7 

.132 

.159 

,136 

9.58 

53 

11.20 

.470 

9.81 

.716 

2.29 

21.1 

.573 

1.57 

.942 

2.65 

54 

Bridgeport,  Conn..  . 

8.27 

1.070 

9.98 

.921 

8.07 

23.4 

1.73 

2.68 

.ni;;; 

7.51 

55 

6.14 

7.18 

.857 

7.79 

18.4 

1.77 

.511 

.  SNX 

3.94 

56 

Oakland,  Cal 

12.80 

1.200 

11.40 

1.430 

.30 

37.6 

1.82 

1.33 

.673 

8.62 

57 

Lawrence,  Mass 

7.33 

6.68 

4.950 

7.83 

21.2 

1.48 

.716 

.953 

4.07 

58 

New  Bedford,  Mass. 

11.00 

7.22 

.769 

5.66 

20.2 

1.42 

1.89 

.7NS 

4.93 

59 

Des  Moines,  Iowa..  . 

5.96 

.791 

9.71 

1.900 

.34 

40.7 

1.14 

2.10 

1.99 

6.85 

60 

Springfield,  Mass, . 

5.12 

7.96 

.498 

4.39 

26.7 

2.40 

1.98 

.409 

4.89 

61 

Somerville,  Mass.. .  . 

5.33 

5.39 

.933 

3.13 

25.0 

1.22 

.934 

.839 

4.76 

62 

Troy,  N.  J 

11.60 
14.10 

.469 
.444 

6.60 
9.96 

1.340 
.705 

10.60 
2.36 

18.7 
24.0 

1.05 

.269 

.588 

.466 
.743 

7.67 

63 

Hoboken,  N.  J 

3.30 

64 

Evansville,  Ind 

9.15 

.427 

10.20 

.499 

.17 

31.9 

.196 

.404 

5.77 

65 

Manchester,  N.  H..  . 

6.53 

.452 

13.00 

1.290 

3.33 

18.7 

.839 

.sin; 

.59 

8.96 

66 

Utica,  N.  Y 

6.28 

.363 

10.70 

1.200 

2.57 

24.3 

1.04 

.437 

.706 

9.53 

67 

9.56 

1  _'    71 1 

2.440 

9.81 
8.30 

1.140 
2.000 

11.50 

31.4 

12.3 

1.82 
.081 

1.95 
1.05 

.942 
1 .  53 

7.21 

68 

Charleston,  S.  C 

4.90 

(a)  Less  than  .01. 


1  Percentages  obtained  from  data  published  in  Bulletin  36  of 


No.   1 

devoted  to  each  of  the  municipal  departments  for  the  fiscal  year  igoo 

above  30,000  population 


M 

c   . 
a  m 

8  p. 

■d 

a 

V 

a 

V 

43 

V 
u     . 

<-  b 

0  p 
,c+3 

0 

3 

> 
0 

E 

0) 

M 

,2 

u 

ni 

O 

& 

O 

•0 

c 

0 

0 
u 

O 

u 

p 

u 
£ 

13 

M 

u 
O 

is 

w 

0 

0 

"p, 

X, 
Of 

V 

s 

9 

u 

a 

.c 

-a 
a 

0 

Q 

V 

to 

JO 

.3 
■d 
u 

nj 

.2 

'u 
u 

0) 

ft 

0 
M 
u 
ni 

B 

0 
5 
O 

4.10 

1.84 

1.04 

13.12 

3.22 

.656 

.360 

.067 

.048 

33.69 

1 

3.02 

1.50 

2.25 

6.73 

6.36 

1.54 

.101 

1.030 

.017 

.054 

7.27 

2 

1.63 

3.59 

2.96 

10.90 

7.79 

.024 

5.210 

.023 

.495 

19.40 

3 

3.32 

3.57 

2.15 

8.66 

6.70 

.660 

.379 

.073 

14.50 

4 

2.67 

7.32 

3.16 

11.10 

6.47 

2.040 

.142 

.332 

.572 

12.40 

5 

2.67 

2.19 

2.22 

20.10 

3.62 

.056 

.286 

.069 

.054 

19.50 

6 

1.20 

1.99 

1.50 

14.40 

5.89 

2.250 

.450 

.648 

15.10 

7 

2.98 

4.02 

1.86 

10.90 

5.86 

.756 

.179 

.230 

.001 

.01 

15.40 

8 

2.70 

3.13 

.25 

.096 

32.50 

9 

3.29 

1.68 

.42 

28.90 

7.85 

.080 

.445 

.221 

7.83 

10 

2.47 

4.25 

1.40 

12.40 

4.65 

.382 

.757 

.288 

30.80 

11 

2.94 

.26 

2.49 

14.70 

48.20 

12 

4.69 

11.50 

1.79 

8.64 

3.60 

3.34 

.589 

.070 

1.71 

13 

5.16 

3.80 

4.80 

9.22 

4.46 

.078 

1.720 

.325 

15.80 

14 

3.48 

6.42 

1.14 

8.43 

3.32 

.651 

.134 

.020 

14.10 

15 

2.54 

1.38 

8.37 

6.96 

.415 

.121 

35.70 

16 

1.47 

2.99 

23.20 

8.96 

.073 

30.70 

17 

3.60 

5.59 

17.60 

4.91 

.279 

17.90 

18 

5.90 

2.03 

12.90 

3.74 

.365 

16.30 

19 

1.73 

5.57 

.698 

20.50 

2.04 

.636 

.626 

17.90 

20 

5.36 

1.54 

2.53 

7.72 

.18 

.301 

.632 

11.80 

21 

4.41 

1.15 

.94 

12.00 

8.48 

.238 

.088 

11.50 

22 

4.34 

3.36 

.88 

22.50 

3.47 

2 .  730 

12.80 

23 

3.10 

1.89 

2.69 

21.80 

2.58 

.595 

1.120 

24 

4.18 

.952 

.52 

7.60 

.017 

.382 

17.40 

25 

2.53 

4.79 

.81 

21.10 

4.81 

1.24 

1.380 

.513 

.626 

11.30 

26 

2.73 

5.53 

1.59 

14.00 

12.50 

4.21 

.170 

.321 

20.70 

27 

3.96 

.82 

.81 

21.10 

6.91 

.020 

.451 

18.50 

28 

2.90 

8.72 

.70 

14.90 

2.56 

.020 

11.50 

29 

5.01 

3.66 

4.05 

15.20 

5.52 

1.610 

.275 

.077 

.283 

8.63    30 

6.45 

3.89 

.39 

10.50 

.772 

12.40|  31 

4.60 

5.09 

2.78 

12.30 

12.501  32 

2.54 

7.17 

2.01 

8.29 

9.66 

1.380 

18.30    33 

2.46 

4.81 

15.80 

5.58 

.206 

10.70 

34 

1.62 

2.52 

20.20 

.148 

35 

6.49 

5.91 

.82 

4.89 

19.40 

36 

3.06 

10.33 

18.60 

.756 

2.350 

.668 

10.60 

37 

1.85 

2.06 

.43 

8.06 

.694 

12.30 

38 

2.35 

2.21 

1.41 

13.70 

6.38 

.709 

8.09 

39 

2.49 

2.27 

.03 

16.60 

9.23 

.377 

.118 

10.70 

40 

2.79 

7.06 

2.49 

14.70 

3.37 

2.360 

.826 

.061 

19.90 

41 

3.18 

1.00 

.36 

27 .  00 

3.66 

23 .  00 

42 

4.20 

14.50 

5.87 

.145 

.837 

11.00 

43 

3.69 

.68 

.44 

7.50 

8.93 

2.22 

.154 

.373 

1.950 

IS.  70 

44 

2.31 

2.61 

2.05 

19.  SO 

4.4G 

1.580 

.669 

7.02 

45 

2.81 

3.36 

1.62 

30.90 

3.14 

11.90 

.292 

.497 

.717 

7.60 

46 

1.62 

6.81 

3.74 

20.60 

6.82 

.343 

7.17 

47 

.854 

2.05 

.06 

20.30 

7.14 

.181 

.035 

!  30.60 

48 

4.72 

13.6 

1.87 

13.10 

4.59 

.835 

.422 

.181!     2.61 

49 

2.26 

3.84 

2.83 

8.37 

8.32 

.157 

13.50 

50 

2.35 

3.34 

4.18 

13.50 

9.27 

.038 

10.701  51 

1.57 

3.77 

1.09 

16.70 

9.49 

6.541  52 

2.43 

2.11 

1.46 

20.10 

7.46 

15.10!  53 

3.48 

6.19 

3.28 

9.12 

.575 

13.00;  54 

1.55 

6.21 

2.61 

15.40 

4.68 

2.190 

19.60 

55 

6.94 

2.64 

3.39 

.429 

9.44 

56 

2.38 

5.48 

1.37 

13.00 

7  22 

.371 

1.300 

13.60 

57 

1.10 

5.51 

2.24 

16.90 

4^45 

.624 

.168 

2.89 

.071 

11.90 

58 

2.24 

1.46 

4.59 

1.950 

1.24 

.151 

16.90 

59 

3.43 

3.32 

1.80 

11.10 

3.94 

22  20 

60 

1.62 

6.09 

1.89 

6.29 

5.73 

.039 

3T20 

61 

9.86 

.63 

4.55 

7.92 

8.65 

.013 

.041 

.040 

.096 

10.40 

62 

1.61 

.25 

.48 

8.49 

21.10 

.475 

.203 

10.00 

63 

1.64 

1.32 

.62 

IS.  CO 

7.14 

.111 

.077 

.311 

11.40 

64 

2.15 

12.20 

2.68 

13.10 

3.88 

1.980 

9.50 

65 

4.00 

1.72 

1.73 

3.15 

.328 

.065 

29 .  10 

66 

2.62 

3.53 
5.15 

.12 

3.84 

8.89 
25.4 

.021 

1.440 

.056 

17.20 
10.  SO 

67 

08 

the  Department  of  Labor,  September,  1901. 


19 


Table 

Showing  percentages  of  total  amount  expended  for  maintenance  and  operation 

All  cities  in  the  United  States 


City. 


Br 


•as 

o  rf 


■gs 


.o.s 
3 


69 

70 
71 
7 -J 
73 
74 
75 
7li 
77 
78 
7'.) 
80 
81 
82 
83 
84 
85 
86 
87 
88 
89 
90 
91 
92 
93 
94 
95 
96 
97 
98 
99 
100 
101 
102 
103 
104 
105 
106 
107 
108 
109 
110 
111 
112 
113 
114 
115 
116 
117 
118 
119 
120 
121 
122 
123 
124 
125 
126 
127 
128 
129 
130 
131 
132 
133 
134 
135 


Savannah,  Ga.  (b) .  . 
Salt  Lake  City,  Utah 
San  Antonio,  Tex. .  . 

Duluth,  Minn 

Erie,  Pa 

Elizabeth,  N.  J 

Wilkesbarre,  Pa 

Kansas  City,  Kas 

Harrisburg,  Pa 

Portland,  Me 

Yonkers,  N.  Y 

Norfolk,  Va 

Waterbury,  Conn..  . 

Holyoke,  Mass 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind 

Youngstown,  Ohio.. 

Houston,  Tex 

Covington,  Ky 

Akron,  Ohio 

Dallas,  Tex 

Saginaw,  Mich 

Lancaster,  Pa 

Lincoln,  Neb 

Brockton,  Mass 

Binghamton,  N.  Y... 

Augusta,  Ga 

Pawtucket,  R.  I 

Altoona,  Pa 

Wheeling,  W.  Va. . . . 

Mobile,  Ala. (b) 

Birmingham,  Ala 

Little  Rock,  Ark 

Springfield,  Ohio .... 
Galveston,  Tex. (b) . . 

Tacoma,  Wash 

Haverhill,  Mass 

Spokane,  Wash 

Terra  Haute,  Ind. . . 

Dubuque,  Iowa 

Quincy,  111 

South  Bend,  Ind... . 

Salem,  Mass 

Johnstown,  Pa 

Elmira,  N.  Y 

Allentown,  Pa 

Davenport,  Iowa 

McKeesport,  Pa 

Springfield,  111 

Chelsea,  Mass 

Chester,  Pa 

York,  Pa 

Maiden,  Mass 

Topeka,  Kansas.  . .  . 

Newton,  Mass 

Sioux  City,  Iowa. ... 

Bayonne,  N.  J 

Knoxville,  Tenn 

Schenectady,  N.  Y. . 

Fitchburg,  Mass 

Superior,  Wis 

Rockford,  111 

Taunton,  Mass 

Canton,  Ohio 

Butte,  Mont 

Montgomery,  Ala..  . 

Auburn,  N.  Y 

Chattanooga,  Tenn.. 


4.81 
8.82 
3.38 
7.09 
8.63 
9.49 
7.93 
7.37 
5.51 
9.41 
7.42 
8.79 
6.34 
8.24 

11.40 
8.91 
7.54 
7.49 
7.99 
6.84 
7.42 
3.74 
5.96 
7.83 

12.40 
6.79 
6.68 
6.88 

12.20 

13.10 

6.25 

2.79 
5.41 
6.55 
8.33 
7.94 
7.87 
7.67 
6.22 
8.54 
8.86 
4.49 
7.48 
8.59 
9.28 
7.33 
9.55 
9.84 
5.23 
6.62 
5.71 
5.21 
7.56 
9.15 

10.40 
6.57 
4.37 
5.37 
8.14 
6.46 

11.60 
9.98 
5 .  09 

10.60 


.609 

1.470 
.661 
.131 

1.230 
.741 


1.040 
.124 

1.130 
.512 

.996 

.149 

.831 

1.100 

.757 

.614 

.480 
.899 
.006 
.336 
1.200 

3.870 

1.230 

.245 

.716 
1.250 

3.290 

.288 


.929 


.615 

.451 
.078 

.735 

.509 
.572 
.187 

1.560 


5.18 
7.45 
9.43 

11.80 
3.97 

10.30 
6.71 
5.35 
6.81 
3.04 
6.07 
7.66 
9.17 

13.90 
8.85 

10.00 
7.67 

13.20 
7.67 
6.77 
6.85 
7.75 
8.22 
6.32 

12.30 
5.40 
7.79 
8.56 

9.45 

13.90 

6.38 

4.34 

8.52 

11.50 

10.80 

8.65 

10.40 

10.60 

5.43 

4.90 

14.90 

9.37 

7.36 

10.10 

12.20 

7.03 

5.19 

7.61 

5.39 

8.27 

5.38 

6.38 

2.00 

9.77 

6.36 

5.56 

7.25 

8.64 

5.48 

8.28 

12.40 

7.21 

5.99 

11.20 


.722 

1.220 

.596 

1.290 

.655 

.871 

5.820 

.809 

.269 

1.890 

2.590 

.714 

.599 

.909 

1.840 

3.390 

1.890 

.789 

.072 

.682 

.977 

1.010 

1.820 

1.680 

.790 
1.240 

2.370 

2.610 

.495 

.260 

.580 

1.310 

.975 

.448 

1.380 

.308 

2.950 

.481 

1.620 

.747 

2.030 

1.380 

.555 

2.210 

.905 

.412 

2.580 

2.570 

1.810 

1.030 

.626 

.615 

1.820 

1.070 

1.390 

.645 

.737 

.874 

3.090 

2 .  460 

.858 

4.390 


.86 
2.11 
1.16 

.01 
3.16 


.06 
4.81 

.52 
1.98 

6.24 

2.32 

4.07 
4.04 
3.63 
3.86 

.03 
6.85 
2.40 
6.14 
2.62 


1.20 
3.06 
5.71 


6.55 
1.32 
2.13 


7.57 
3.14 


10.60 

.17 
6.35 

3.01 

.52 
2.21 
2.37 
6.99 
.66 
.40 
6.51 
1.18 

.55 
4.60 
2.15 


30.5 
22.1 
21.2 
32.2 
20.7 
39.7 
27.7 
33.8 
17.2 
23.5 
6.8 
39.5 
27.2 
28.7 
35.7 
17.9 
19.8 
30.4 
17.6 
35.1 
33.0 
34.9 
20.3 
37.1 
17.6 
17.7 
34.1 
25.1 


13.7 
34.1 
28.5 

10.9 
21.3 
20.9 
35.8 
28.8 
26.9 
32.3 
20.0 
45.6 
22.6 
36.9 
39.6 
30.8 
29.5 
25.5 
34.6 
36.3 
21.9 
35.8 
16.1 
27.2 
22.8 
18.2 
24.5 
21.7 
23.1 
34.9 
23.5 
31.7 
38.6 
7.41 
23.9 
15.0 


.864 


.677 
2.00 


.347 

.623 
.441 
.197 
.236 
.428 
1.40 
.392 


.678 

.236 

1.03 
1.69 
.368 

.993 

1.19 


1.15 

.356 
2.31 

.380 
1.75 

1.75 
1.08 
1.19 

.328 


1.53 
1 .  30 
1.37 
.571 
.822 

.612 
1.78 

.572 
1.84 
1.54 

.345 
2.37 

.581 
.05 


.904 
2.18 
1.51 

.824 

1.41 
4.48 
.232 
.881 
2.22 
1.34 
.236 
.963 
2.81 
1.19 
.443 

.835 
.602 
.136 

.023 

.933 

.111 


.440 

2.56 

.629 
1.24 
.484 
.545 
.362 
1.47 
1.75 
.979 

1.25 

1.78 

.929 
.275 

1.77 

.187 
1.23 
1.89 
.438 
.33 


.169 
.584 

.249 
.249 
.691 


1.52 


.165 
.005 
.67 

.648 

2.21 

1.93 
.116 

1.01 
.502 

1.91 

1.18 
.351 
.661 
.584 
.414 
.776 
.349 
.035 
.296 
.361 

1.14 

1.42 

1.01 

1.46 
.207 
.626 

.058 
.784 
.952 

.797 
1.13 
.219 
.402 
1.33 
.461 
.866 
.696 
.979 
.778 

.361 
.355 

.577 
.472 
3.89 

1.42 

.345 
4.57 
1.53 
.037 

1.48 
1.18 
.594 
.476 
.725 
1.89 
.275 

.351 
.536 


(6)  No  data  for  school  expenditures. 


1  Percentages  obtained  from  data  published  in  Bulletin  36  of 

20 


No.  1  (Continued) 

devoted  to  each  of  the  municipal  departments  for  the  fiscal  year  igoo 

above  30,000  population 


•a 

a 

•a 

a 

c 

a 

<u 

eg 

0) 

a 

d 

to 

M 

a   . 

a 

■A 

-4^» 

> 
0 

a 

."2 
J3 

c«  c 

<U 

^ 

bo 

•a 

■§1 

9 

O 

u 

0 

C 

C3 

. 

1 

d 

be 

0 

0 

1-.  10 
00 

11 
O 

u 

a 

u 

<D 

a 

■M 
Clj 

0 

u 

0 

3 

O 

Q 

ID 

0! 

0 

S 
<u 

0 

.3 

u 

V 

0 

69 

5.78 

1.48 

1.19 

21.60 

6.25 

1.12 

14.10 

70 

4.05 

8.38 

2.37 

21.10 

.352 

18.80 

71 

.78 

2.48 

27.90 

2.93 

2.56 

.99 

.015 

19.50 

72 

1.14 

3.34 
4.02 
6.99 

1.12 

8.69 

22.70 

7.03 

11.60 

.215 

2.280 

.532 

10.60 
30.00 
11.20 

73 
74 
75 

2.46 

2.31 

24.10 

1.490 

.029 

11.90 

76 

1.23 

5.08 

14.90 

7.51 

3.560 

12.20 

77 

1.68 

6.21 

.47 

14.20 

2.57 

33.90 

78 

3.45 

3.26 

3.21 

19.20 

5.74 

.058 

.329 

15.10 

79 

4.20 

2.43 

30.30 

6.05 

.098 

.922 

24.90 

80 

2.01 

2.24 

1.65 

12.60 

4.56 

12.20 

81 

2.43 

2.13 

2.69 

14.80 

4.94 

.831 

.058 

16.20 

82 

2.51 

2.87 

1.88 

10.00 

8.15 

.328 

10.20 

83 

5.58 

.33 

9.87 

5.29 

.097 

10.00 

84 

.58 

11.50 

2.89 

25.70 

.065 

.997 

.011 

15.10 

85 

6.33 

.93 

18.80 

6.50 

.073 

21.10 

86 

7.76 

6.92 

.590 

18.00 

87 

2.65 

4.95 

.09 

21.60 

6.61 

20.50 

88 

1.89 

2.81 

.06 

15.10 

7.65 

1.460 

.591 

10.50 

89 

2.41 

4.52 

.72 

11.20 

10.60 

10.90 

90 

2.26 

2.39 

23.80 

7.03 

1.39 

8.03 

91 

2.55 

18.7 

1.74 

13.90 

2.47 

.421 

10.70 

92 

3.08 

5.60 

.09 

6.15 

7.79 

9.01 

93 

.82 

1.14 

1.02 

22.30 

3.56 

.277 

1.58 

11.90 

94 

1.61 

4.60 

.52 

25.00 

19.50 

.701 

8.56 

95 

1.85 

4.34 

14.40 

7.66 

.524 

.324 

14.60 

96 

1.41 

2.21 

1.77 

6.24 

10.40 

19.0 

4.95 

.148 

.105 

.414 

.218 

8.41 

97 
98 

5.51 

2.76 

24.26 

.264 

.591 

18.40 

99 

2.98 

3.06 

4.31 

22.20 

100 

12.50 

.64 

12.90 

5.91 

1.700 

.297 

.081 

3.96 

101 
102 

3.06 

65.70 

2.69 

5.10 

.116 

3.24  103 

4.41 

6.29 

1.45 

13.50 

3.72 

.291 

.066 

17.101104 

2.05 

5.14 

24.80 

2.39 

.671 

19.90  105 

3.78 

1.95 

1.45 

5.77 

1.42 

17.20  106 

3.67 

4.48 

.63 

19.40 

4.23 

.045 

.212 

13.20 

107 

1.44 

4.31 

.81 

20.90 

.048 

.341 

11.30 

108 

3.24 

2.25 

13.90 

9.31 

.072 

.661 

9.56 

109 

1.64 

6.95 

.47 

8.90 

5.47 

.315 

.083 

1.03 

23.50 

110 

3.94 

2.92 

10.80 

13.10 

111 

.55 

7.38 

.06 

9.11 

1.22 

1.58 

17.00 

112 

.36 

5.31 

.86 

11.90 

14.2 

7.67 

113 

4.73 

2.55 

.85 

4.74 

.074 

1.58 

16.80 

114 

2.84 

2.92 

7.51 

9.56 

20.20 

115 

3.18 

2.38 

15.20 

5.59 

2.47 

9.73 

116 

2.72 

6.08 

1.94 

14.60 

3.84 

10.40 

117 

.39 

7.20 
4.52 

.79 
3.12 

14.10 
5.92 

.085 

12.90 
19.90 

118 
119 

1.86 

10.9 

1.63 

8.12 

5.31 

.078 

1.36 

20.60 

120 

2.11 

6.76 

14.20 

3.32 

.412 

15.70 

121 

3.10 

9.95 

.82 

22.00 

1.74 

.019 

19.90 

122 

1.45 

5.01 

1.53 

22.00 

5.36 

2.410 

.057 

15.20 

123 

1.19 

1.61 

10.8 

1.06 

16.90 
28.40 

2.54 

35.30 
11.40 

124 
125 

6.42 

6.01 

.24 

16.10 

12.30 

.475 

2.92 

126 

2.43 

7.55 

.51 

1  l.so 

7.16 

1.41 

1  1.70 

127 

3.68 

1.06 

19.40 

.078 

35.40 

128 

2.84 

9.15 

.57 

8.98 

10.60 

.114 

7.07 

129 

1.76 

6.95 
8.31 

.22 

15.10 
13.80 

I.N9 

7.41 

5.66 

.169 

.523 

16.10 
11.91 

130 
131 

8.15 

2.05 

.57 

7.89 

7.11 

132 

4.77 

1.82 

26.20 

14.10 

.365 

.717 

19.50 

133 

1.66 

3.53 

1.12 

6.61 

6.44 

.972 

.168 

30.00 

134 

1.41 

2.94 

1.74 

17.90 

.csr 

20.10 

135 

the  Department  of  Labor,  September,  1901. 


Table 
Showing  percentages  of  total  amount  expended  for  maintenance  and  operation 

All  cities  in  the  United  States 


City. 

a 

s 

u 

3 

0, 

<o 
■a 

u 
o 

*0 

a, 

[a 

u 

B 
o 
o 

53  « 

a, 

o 

S 

a) 

a 

<D 

.U 

PC, 

a 
a 

s 

u 
oi 
O, 

•3 

■g 
"3 

s 

5>, 

a! 
0,  O 

5?+-' 
o  « 
W 

w 

"o 
o 

X, 
o 

u  H 
5s  to 

0!  J> 

Js 

£.52 

3 

a 

V 

M 

•d 
a 

5C! 

a 

CL, 

u 
o 

V 

in 

60 
3 

"3 
a 

'o 

'3 

6b 
c 

'3 
5 

"o 

a 

<u 
u 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

1-1 

IS 

Hi 

17 

IS 

19 

20 
21 
22 

23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 

45 

46 
47 
48 
49 
50 
51 
52 
53 
54 
55 

New  York,  N.  Y  , 

Chicago,  111 

Philadelphia,  Pa 

St.  Louis,  Mo 

Boston,  Mass 

Baltimore,  Md 

Buffalo,  N.  Y 

San  Francisco,  Cal . . . 
Cincinnati,  Ohio 

New  Orleans,  La 

Detroit,  Mich 

Milwaukee,  Wis 

Washington,  D.  C 

Newark,  N.  J 

Jersey  City,  N.  J 

Louisville,  Ky 

Minneapolis,  Minn. . . . 

Kansas  Citv,  Mo 

St.  Paul,  Minn 

Rochester,  N.  Y 

Toledo,  Ohio 

Allegheny,  Pa 

Columbus,  Ohio 

Worcester,  Mass 

Syracuse,  N.  Y 

New  Haven,  Conn 

Paterson,  N.  J 

St.  Joseph,  Mo 

Omaha,  Nebr 

Los  Angeles,  Cal 

Lowell,  Mass 

Albanv,  N.  Y 

Cambridge,  Mass 

Portland,  Ore 

Atlanta,  Ga 

Grand  Rapids,  Mich. . 
Dayton,  Ohio 

Hartford,  Conn 

Reading,  Pa 

Camden,  N.  J 

Trenton,  N.  J 

Bridgeport,  Conn 

9.90 

16.55 

15.88 

18.38 

8.01 

12.71 

8.69 

13.52 

13.39 

8.93 

9.07 

5.38 

13.36 

9.17 

11.54 

11.24 

11.71 

9.86 

7.36 

10.70 

9.93 

9.30 

7.55 

6.12 

8.49 

7.02 

8.41 

6.94 

6.33 

6.00 

13.59 

10.01 

8.64 

6.79 

6.32 

8.37 

11.10 

7.64 

9.69 

10.77 

5.95 

5.59 

12.15 

8.19 

9.36 

8.27 

10.85 

7.64 

8.29 

7.52 

12.20 

11.02 

11.00 

8.79 

6.61 

8.94 

8.03 

11.14 

6.84 

5.81 

6.38 

11.02 

13.  (Hi 

8.61 

7.23 

6.38 

9.12 

14.78 

1.27 
1.11 
6.48 
1.33 
5.16 
1.61 
2.42 
.41 
2.75 
2.14 

.86 

.28 

.97 

4.62 

1.07 

3.83 

1.15 
.15 
.15 
.92 

1.48 
.48 
.59 

1.36 

1.91 

.59 
1.46 

.28 

1.00 
.75 
.51 

.49 

.45 

.57 

1.32 

1.46 

.33 

.59 

.84 
.42 

.46 

.72 

.35 

1.05 

1.05 

5.96 

.44 
.41 
.28 
.44 
.37 
2.15 

4.60 

7.40 

5.76 

8.82 

5.87 

6.69 

10.15 

11.75 

11.17 

7.59 

10.34 

6.20 

13.72 

12.15 

4.47 

8.37 

6.70 

8.28 

11.05 

10.30 

10.70 

9.03 

8.18 

7.43 

8.22 

7.40 

8.98 

9.95 

7.09 

7.66 

9.88 

9.78 

7.62 

6.79 

8.18 

8.48 

1.00 

7.50 

8.46 

9.78 

4  22 

8^40 

10.11 

11.84 

7.93 

7.34 

10.80 

8.68 

7.97 

6.08 

5.44 

10.30 

9.12 

9.67 

7.93 

10.50 

7.34 

7.73 

10.90 

8.37 

6.  2(1 

6.34 

9.99 

10.08 

14.06 

11.65 

8.98 

7.94 

1.13 

.85 

1.31 

1.77 

.92 

1.24 

2.06 

.81 

1.14 

.69 

1.59 

1.04 

1.03 

1.14 

1.19 

1.97 

.23 

.29 

.84 

.73 

.92 

1.15 

.43 

.86 

1.35 

.89 

.95 

1.08 

1.32 

1.37 

.54 

.67 

1.58 

.19 

.58 

.90 

7.26 

1.12 

.86 

1.15 

.85 

.59 

8.48 

1.60 

.91 

.72 

1.62 

1.31 

.79 

.70 

.76 

.74 

.84 

.61 

.97 

1.96 

1.81 

2.97 

.49 

.61 

.78 

1.96 

.81 

.37 

2.05 

2.03 

.86 

1    DC 

4.61 

.06 
3.69 
7.57 
5.51 
4.07 
2.99 
2.31 
4.38 
3.83 
2.73 
1.39 
1.39 

.26 
6.83 
3.28 

.79 
2.36 
3.06 
1.14 
2.24 
1.52 
1.01 
2.69 
1.84 

.02 
4.57 

.89 
5.82 
4.43 
5.41 
4.45 
9.09 
1.88 

.65 

.98 
3.71 

7.66 
4.91 
6.65 

.46 
5.13 
1.48 
2.26 
3.40 
2.88 

.76 
5.51 

.01 
1.27 
2.26 
8.72 
9.02 

.31 
8.81 
6.68 

.36 
4.94 
3.93 
8.77 
1.85 

.38 

3.28 

2.63 

3.28 

10.66 

19.17 
36.85 
17.37 
17.51 
13.07 
18.61 
26.17 
19.81 
19.80 
18.12 
15.60 
11.12 
21.44 
20.49 
19.84 
21.79 
13.90 
18.48 
25.03 
21.40 
32.70 
20.20 
23.93 
16.98 
35 .  93 
25.33 
22.13 
23.55 
21.90 
17.87 
26.34 
25.48 
20.20 
17.73 
27.16 
33.75 
15.40 
41.40 
23.58 
20.25 
20.38 
28.00 
14.32 
29.43 
33.70 
9.83 
20.60 
23.56 
26.45 
30.70 
29.10 
28.90 
2  7.  SO 
23.00 
ID.  52 
40.90 
22 .  93 
23.08 
36.70 
30.92 
28.39 
21.18 
22.51 
29.26 
19.90 
26.04 
2S.CS 

12.76 

.71 

.94 
1.34 

.42 
1   22 

!54 
1.72 
1.68 

.80 
1.38 
2.33 

.23 
1.26 
1.77 

.15 
1.06 

.87 

1.43 

.64 

1.57 

1.03 

.64 

.13 

1.28 

.69 

1.93 

.62 

1.01 

1.16 

.95 

1.14 

.94 

.86 

1.16 

1.29 

.56 

1.30 

1.17 

.66 

.96 

.60 

.74 

1.11 

.05 

.61 

1.67 

.75 

.61 

1.05 

23 

.71 

1.59 

1.16 

2.14 

1.46 

1.37 

1.52 

2 .  57 

1.62 

1.02 

.84 

.94 

1.58 

.08 

1.33 

3.41 

2.35 

1.32 

1.91 

2.73 

1.62 

3.41 

2.83 

.73 

3.01 

.26 

2.68 

1.42 

1.37 

.12 

.31 

1.67 

2.33 

1.36 

3.60 

3.60 

2.33 

1.05 

3.71 

2.85 

1.72 

.65 

.95 

1.33 

1.49 

1.62 

.11 

.99 

1.42 

4.20 

.32 

.56 

.80 

3.10 

.99 

1.33 

1.16 

2.26 

.29 

.54 

1.77 

2.28 

2.01 

1.59 

1.84 

1.86 

2.45 

.74 

.72 

.88 

2.26 

4.07 

1.90 

.92 

.23 

.54 

.28 

.83 

1.07 

4.10 

1.54 

.41 

1.27 

1.43 

1.12 

1.80 

.53 

1.04 

.19 

1.07 

.52 

.82 

.88 

.90 

2.58 

2.30 

1.87 

.58 

.54 

.71 

2.09 

.63 

.82 

.68 

.11 

1.05 

.80 

.76 

.54 

9.85 

1.36 

.91 

.02 

1.48 

.57 

.34 

1.06 

.88 

1.02 

4.42 

.52 

.69 

.68 

.21 

.79 

1 .  05 
.97 

4.83 

1.31 
.54 
.57 

1.08 
.77 
.59 

2.13 
.75 

1.58 

1.14 
.98 
.64 
.69 
.67 
.66 
.59 
.75 

1.19 

2.65 
2.13 
6.46 
6.72 
3.60 
4.30 
5.39 
5.99 
4.32 
5.48 
5.66 
5.03 

5.63 
4.13 
5.71 
4.48 
5.44 
5.26 
8.40 
6.62 
2.87 
5.47 
7.72 
4.86 
4.92 

4.23 
5.16 
4.83 
6.02 
7.08 
6.19 
.04 
5.55 
4.88 
5.40 
6.14 
6.61 
6.20 
3.39 
5.18 
6.48 

5.58 
2.71 
5.75 
2.96 
4.01 

10.10 
C  81 

10.00 
6.95 
7.13 
4.39 
8.74 
4.49 
5.14 
6.65 
5.73 
5.62 
8.21 
3.31 
l.CS 
9.42 
9.66 
5.02 
4.49 

2.82 
2.22 
1.67 
1.50 
1.61 
2.73 
1.30 
2.45 
3.03 
3.75 
4.69 
2.44 
3.98 
2.95 
2.96 
3.65 
1.87 
3.92 
1.39 
1.73 
3.27 
3.30 
6.19 
2.79 
2.20 
2.83 
2.75 
4.05 
1.78 
3.56 
2.76 
2.79 
1.44 

.99 
1.59 
2.41 
1.11 
2.09 
2.01 

.85 
1.39 
4.09 

4.23 
1.95 
2.72 

1.51 
3.01 
2.17 
2.02 
1.80 
1.90 
3.58 
.69 

56 

.",7 
58 
:,<» 
ti() 
61 
62 

Oakland,  Cal 

ace,  Mass 

New  Bedford,  Mass.. 
Des  Moines,  Iowa...  . 

Springfield,  Mass 

Somcrville,  Mass 

Troy,  N.  Y 

2.40 
1.08 
1.46 
2.28 
2.14 
1.51 
10.46 

63 
64 
65 

OC 

Hoboken,  N.  J 

Evansville,  Ind 

Manchester,  N.  H.. .  . 
Utica,  N.  Y 

1.93 
2.58 
1.37 
3.56 

67 

Peoria,  111 

2  42 

68 

Charleston,  S.  C 

2.46 

1  Percentages  obtained  from  data  published  in  Bulletin  42  of  the  Department  of 
22 


No.  2 

devoted  to  each  of  the  municipal  departments  for  the  fiscal  year  igoi  ' 

above  30,000  population 


.10 


1.73 
.75 
.01 


.24 


2.12 
.05 


3.81 

2.44 
.36 
1.13 
1.23 
2.33 


1.54 

1.00 

1.92 

.32 

.60 


3.79 
2.28 


.72 
1.23 


.07 

.12 

1.47 

1.57 


1.77 
2.05 
1.43 


2.33 
.75 


1.18 

.57 


.25 


4.27 
1.33 
2.35 
3.37 
7.49 
2.46 

.99 
2.02 
1.87 
1.92 
3.12 

.37 
8.59 
4.11 
6.22 

4.311 
5.35 
2.20 
6.70 
1.60 
2.24 

1.79 
3.49 
4.65 
2.30 
6.20 
9.88 
3.32 
5.57 
3.33 
7.74 
6.68 
3.08 
6.91 
10.70 
6.66 
3.86 
4.56 
7.41 
1.10 
8.05 
1.20 
2.02 
4.39 
6.27 
2.76 
8.40 
6.11 
5.57 
3.46 
1.91 
6.99 
6.53 
3.13 
3.73 
5.51 
1.41 
7.02 
8.06 
1.10 
.20 
.89 
7.35 
1.11 
2.71 
2.74 


2.55 
2.39 
3.59 
2.49 
2.84 
2.17 
2.15 
1.99 

.43 
1.73 
2.23 
1.60 
4.89 
2.04 
1.83 


.04 
.83 

2.45 
.70 
.84 

3.29 
.20 
.76 

1.70 
.88 
.76 

2.87 
.41 

2.44 

1.99 
.34 
.20 
.83 


2.3S 
.02 

2.61 
.47 


.60 
2.29 
1.60 
4.32 

.09 
1.70 
2.49 
4.21 
1.21 
2.31 
3.39 
2.96 

3.70 
2.35 

.13 
1.99 
3.08 
2.92 
1  ,ii«; 

.83 
2.76 
3.52 

.09 
3.90 


13.30 
6.80 
7.48 
8.93 
15.49 
20.32 
14.83 
11.29 
.25 
27.94 
17.54 
18.60 
8.19 
8.46 
9.63 
21.02 
27.61 
17.41 
12.78 
18.50 
7.53 
11.80 
16.54 
16.14 
7.09 
20.71 
15.65 
19.13 
18.21 
12.88 
11.09 
12.40 
14.34 
8.02 
17.97 
4.70 
17.60 
7.43 
12.44 
15.00 
15.08 
31.70 
12.31 
8.79 
18.30 
29. 7S 
19.60 
24.60 
12.88 
8.89 
12.00 
14.98 
18.20 
9.18 
16.74 
3.26 
12.11 
15.27 
6.88 
12.05 
4.71 
8.13 
7.84 
17.38 
13.00 
5.09 
7.39 
25.66 


2.91 
6.80 
7.40 
7.50 
2.79 
5.18 
5.71 
7.44 

7.72 
4.29 

1.40 
4.07 
5.42 
6.04 
15.42 
5.30 
4.54 
3.93 
.17 
6.81 
4.04 
3.16 

4.28 
12.73 
6.93 
2.15 
4.70 


3.22 


6.70 
8.50 
3.72 
3.62 
9.63 
5.74 
4.34 
2.69 
7.25 
5.79 
5.23 
6.43 
8.35 
7.10 
6.10 

6.30 

11.07 
3.54 

3.76 
4.99 
7.60 
19.35 
9.59 
4.93 


1.49 


2.66 


10.82 


6.03 


2.06 


2.27 


.84 
.10 
.07 
.66 

.07 

.86 


.07 
.08 

.006 
.47 

.002 

.12 

.31 


.21 


.005 


.79 


.04 


.2;; 


1.10 
.57 


.25 


.86 
.50 
.53 

2.02 
.27 

.13 
.11 
.57 
.43 
.001 
.19 
1.63 
.23 
.10 


.85 
.87 
.33 
.23 
1.75 
.71 

1.56 

.03 
.05 
.95 


.05 


1.64 
.63 
.69 
.32 
.99 
.88 
.10 
.50 

1.21 
.34 

.004 
.93 


.7.-. 


.90 

.01 
2.19 

.17 

.02 

.16 

.77 

1.73 

1.11 


.07 

.02 

.04 

.07 

.001 

.39 

.44 

.24 

.21 
.22 
.09 
.18 

.12 
.55 


.09 

.  1 5 
.39 
.34 


.31 


.  ]S 


.17 


:>i 


o 

.001 

.01 

.32 

.61 
.002 


.30 


.02 

.71 
.55 
.11 

1.06 

.62 

.51 

1.05 

.05 

1.25 


.57 
.84 


1.06 
1.59 


.71 
.31 


2.37 

1.32 
3.18 
1.09 


.07 
.61 

2.06 
1.98 


.09 
.07 
.05 

.71 
.10 

.05 


.04 

.12 


.10 


.001 
.08 


.02 
.23 


.13 

1.01 


.1-1 
.05 


.08 
.11 
.05 

.01 
.18 


.17 


26.47 

1 

7.03 

2 

14.60 

3 

8.70 

4 

1  N  .  1  0 

5 

13.20 

6 

10.00 

7 

13.60 

8 

32.80 

9 

7.90 

10 

16.70 

11 

43 .  80 

12 

17.10 

13 

15.50 

14 

16.83 

15 

10.20 

16 

11.10 

17 

16.90 

18 

16.00 

19 

9.93 

20 

13.20 

21 

24.10 

22 

17.69 

23 

26.10 

24 

17.20 

25 

12.70 

26 

9.50 

27 

11.65 

28 

4.60 

29 

24.90 

30 

10.10 

31 

17.20 

32 

15.00 

33 

44 .  50 

34 

23.90 

35 

17.30 

36 

9.99 

37 

16.10 

38 

10.88 

39 

12.05 

40 

18.90 

41 

7.54 

42 

9.65 

43 

17.28 

44 

6.37 

45 

12.24 

46 

7.07 

47 

14.71 

48 

8.32 

49 

11.30 

50 

S.95 

51 

7.37 

52 

8.18 

53 

11.20 

oi 

11.46 

55 

12.20 

56 

6.75 

57 

6.84 

58 

16. 2C 

59 

8.34 

60 

22.72 

61 

9.98 

62 

1 4  .  .->! 

63 

10.21 

64 

8.56 

65 

23.4- 

66 

21.71 

67 

9.  OS 

68 

Labor,  September,  1902. 


23 


Table 

Showing  percentages  of  total  amount  expended  for  maintenance  and  operation 

All  cities  in  the  United  States 


e 

" 

c 

1 

c 

si 

City. 

0) 

B 

H 

C3 

a 

(D 

E 

| 

a! 

a 

03 

a!    - 

be 

th 
c 

'2 

13 

o 

a 

"3 

s* 

c 

a 

"3 

a, 

a, 

•a 

V 

o  "> 

o 
o 

o 

rt    - 

*Q   in 

u 

nl 

a, 

u 
to 

'S 

i=5 

u 

69 

14.17 

.01 

12.45 

2.91 

2.90 

(b) 

1.41 

.79 

5.99 

2.47 

70 

Salt  Lake  City,  Utah. 

5.11 

.71 

5.45 

.67 

1.26 

33.49 

.72 

.99 

.44 

3.95 

1.86 

71 

San  Antonio,  Tex. . . . 

8.78 

8.19 

2.78 

1.34 

20.12 

2.37 

.63 

3.27 

72 

Duluth,  Minn 

4.11 

1.38 

8.72 

.60 

1.32 

24.02 

.85 

.86 

.86 

2.34 

.38 

73 

6.96 
11.26 

.40 
.14 

11.91 
5.41 

1.51 
1  42 

4.17 

31.12 
26.69 

1.53 

.83 

.46 

8.42 

4.77 

1.23 

74 

Elizabeth,  N.  J 

75 

Wilkesbarre,  Pa 

9.44 

.28 

9.66 

.86 

38.80 

.13 

1.92 

10.80 

76 

Kansas  City,  Kans. . . 

9.53 

.95 

7.31 

4. IS 

21.20 

.31 

.'23 

.73 

6.03 

2.45 

77 

Harrisburg,  Pa 

6.83 

4.47 

5.68 

.06 

35.20 

.77 

.22 

7.54 

.76 

78 

Portland,  Me 

6.10 

8.76 

.61 

5.14 

20.10 

.88 

.61 

3.55 

5.40 

2.74 

79 

Yonkers,  N.  Y 

9.68 

1.04 

5.86 

2.95 

.69 

24.90 

.53 

2.85 

.46 

4.77 

2.04 

80 

Norfolk,  Va 

7.29 

.01 

5.52 

3.17 

1.48 

6.96 

.18 

1.15 

2.32 

1.96 

4.23 

81 

Waterburv,  Conn 

9.77 

1.13 

8.21 

.63 

42.49 

.65 

.89 

1.58 

5.40 

2.30 

82 

Holvoke,  Mass 

6.11 

9.26 

.84 

6.38 

24.89 

.76 

.94 

.39 

3.81 

1.07 

83 

Fort  Wayne,  Ind 

8.78 

15.34 

1.32 

30.71 

1.40 

2.92 

.59 

7.99 

2.89 

84 

Youngstown,  Ohio . . . 

10.73 

.72 

8.49 

1.52 

3.2S 

34.93 

.69 

.37 

1.17 

5.88 

4.86 

85 

7.79 
8.22 

1.53 

9.28 
7.12 

3.39 
3.45 

3.86 

18.24 
19.70 

.28 

.48 
.70 

3.17 
4.25 

86 

1.85 

87 

Akron,  Ohio 

8.52 

.75 

10.86 

.01 

2.12 

44.16 

2.44 

.44 

.39 

7.20 

1.37 

88 

8.36 

7.88 

1.26 
.66 

10.72 
7.19 

4.28 
.64 

3.41 

19.08 
34.00 

.75 

.58 

.61 
.13 

.02 
.24 

5.12 
4.30 

2.27 

89 

2.08 

90 

6.43 

6.13 

.61 

.56 

35.66 

.33 

11.02 

2.29 

91 

4.46 

.43 

8.23 

.95 

.08 

33.41 

1.25 

.02 

.70 

3.91 

.96 

92 

Brockton,  Mass 

6.6S 

8.61 

1.65 

6.16 

22.10 

1.05 

1.83 

5.14 

1.09 

93 

Binghamton,  N.  Y..  . 

6.54 

.41 

5.98 

1.29 

2.99 

35.30 

.43 

.72 

.59 

10.20 

2.38 

94 

11.02 

1.05 

10.11 

1.47 

4.26 

17.91 

.18 

.87 

4.58 

.32 

95 

Pawtucket,  R.  I 

7.03 

5.79 

3.23 

20.30 

1.08 

.36 

1.67 

5.01 

2.16 

96 

Altoona,  Pa 

6.36 

.25 

8.75 

.71 

32.20 

1.11 

5.99 

1.79 

97 

Wheeling,  W.  Va 

8.39 

1.42 

9.65 

.95 

.52 

21.54 

1.15 

.21 

2.20 

98 

Mobile,  Ala 

13.86 

.40 

8.60 

.71 

3.57 

16.48 

.65 

.98 

6.59 

1.77 

99 

Birmingham,  Ala 

10.90 

3.44 

9.28 

.85 

1.41 

12.30 

.99 

.14 

4.18 

100 

Little  Rock,  Ark 

15.54 

14.44 

.97 

3.99 

38.41 

1.82 

.54 

101 

7.31 

1.06 

6.78 

.84 

2.37 

27.53 

1.00 

2.09 

.40 

8.94 

102 

8.80 

11.30 

4.20 

6.19 

21.10 

.30 

.04 

.52 

103 

5.04 

.39 

6.72 

.60 

.43 

23.49 

.73 

.98 

1.86 

104 

Haverhill,  Mass 

5.73 

8.50 

.63 

6.91 

21.28 

1.09 

1.28 

.55 

6.36 

.80 

105 

6.59 

1.10 

12.28 

.99 

1.36 

28.73 

.56 

1.04 

.29 

2.03 

.93 

106 

Terra  Haute,  Ind 

7.54 

.24 

9.96 

1.94 

.11 

34.51 

2.09 

.52 

.29 

6.83 

3.10 

107 

7.63 

8.87 

.48 

.32 

25.92 

.29 

1.30 

6.62 

3.77 

108 

7.65 

1.97 

10.31 

1.29 

29.93 

1.57 

2.28 

.82 

7.19 

1.50 

109 

So.  Bend,  Ind 

6.90 

11.00 

.22 

26.70 

1.50 

.96 

.73 

6.58 

6.20 

110 

Salem,  Mass 

6.97 

6.39 

2.66 

8.59 

21.18 

1.34 

1.14 

.58 

6.68 

1.05 

111 

7.92 

.27 

4.57 

.50 

46.80 

.69 

1.12 

8.26 

3.65 

112 

Elmira,  N.  Y 

7.44 

11.50 

1.62 

2.18 

27.60 

.42 

1.42 

2.28 

7.92 

.79 

113 

5.58 

8.04 

.79 

39.74 

8.46 

.65 

114 

Davenport,  Iowa.  .  .  . 

7.65 

7.30 

1.32 

43.80 

.11 

2.16 

.53 

2.79 

2.80 

115 

McKeesport,  Pa 

10.15 

9.71 

.95 

30.48 

.87 

.44 

5.92 

2.61 

116 

Springfield,  111 

8.60 

1.15 

11.90 

.60 

28.20 

.79 

.59 

6.04 

3.69 

117 

Chelsea,  Mass 

5.32 

5.21 

2.54 

8.02 

18.86 

.59 

.21 

.67 

4.22 

.75 

118 

9.90 

6.22 

1.78 

36.90 

.99 

.79 

8.92 

.40 

119 

York,  Pa 

10.18 

6.85 

1.94 

.14 

37.69 

.16 

11.32 

120 

Maiden,  Mass 

5.96 

6.03 

1.20 

7.01 

28.10 

1.73 

.24 

.12 

5.27 

121 

7.81 

.67 

8.75 

2.95 

.54 

31.67 

1.88 

1.69 

.42 

2  42 

122 

6.76 

5.39 

1.78 

4.24 

18.92 

1.52 

.38 

.40 

5.53 

2.21 

123 

5.19 

.35 

6.72 

1.20 

27.99 

.59 

.28 

1.68 

3.96 

1.52 

124 

Bayonne,  N.  J 

8.48 

.16 

2.84 

1.33 

.68 

lis.:::; 

.87 

.51 

6.45 

1.37 

125 

Knoxville,  Tenn 

8.67 

8.79 

.69 

3.54 

19.93 

9.59 

126 

Schenectady,  N.  Y. . . 

7.52 

.39 

7.56 

5.71 

2.67 

20.57 

.15 

1.11 

8.75 

1.83 

127 

Fitchburg,  Mass 

6.99 

6.23 

.92 

9.28 

22.35 

1.39 

.54 

1.02 

6.35 

.98 

1 5JX 

6.34 
5.69 

.56 
.56 

9.19 
9.94 

2.17 
.65 

3.35 
.39 

29.24 
36.06 

1.04 
2.19 

.24 

.43 
1.25 

2.95 

7.21 

4.55 

129 

Rockford,  111 

3.26 

130 

Taunton,  Mass 

8.66 

.22 

5.92 

.87 

7.17 

25.02 

1.27 

.25 

.74 

1.74 

1.83 

131 

Canton,  Ohio 

7.24 

.86 

11.04 

1.25 

.99 

33.35 

.72 

.72 

2.10 

7.79 

132 

Butte,  Mont 

11.75 

1.49 

7.59 

2.43 

34.70 

2.36 

.05 

4.47 

2.08 

133 

Montgomery,  Ala 

11.45 

7.84 

2.76 

.46 

10.26 

5.54 

5.80 

13  1 

Auburn,  N.  Y 

6.97 

.52 

7.15 

1.06 

5.73 

27.99 

.69 

10.45 

2.62 

135 

Chattanooga,  Tenn. . 

12.31 

13.26 

5.38 

2.53 

17.85 

.20 

1.59 

.16 

2.41 

1.87 

136 

E.  St.  Louis,  111 

10.47 

.80 

8.71 

1.59 

25.64 

1.86 

.82 

5.15 

12.62 

137 

Joliet,  111 

11.98 

12 .  23 

1.87 

.84 

27 .  62 

1.59 

2.25 

.59 

6.86 

2.86 

1  Percentages  obtained  from  data  published  in  Bulletin  No.  42  of  the  Department  of 
(b)  No  data  for  school  expenditures. 

24 


No.  2  {Continued) 

devoted  to  each  of  the  municipal  departments  for  the  fiscal  year  igoi  » 

above  jo,ooo  population 


■n 


o 


.19 

3.17 

-.90 

.74 


.13 


1.15 
.04 


1.45 
.62 


1.57 
.15 
.40 

1.30 


1.56 
.74 
.12 


.74 

2.54 
1.39 


1.68 

.06 

1.44 

.08 

.37 

.87 


2.31 
.09 


6.63 
2.55 

13.40 
3.95 
2.81 
5.65 

10.30 
2.94 
8.05 
6.85 
2.94 
5.12 
3.60 
2.00 
2.47 
2.22 
8.54 
5.89 

4.79 
6.40 
5.71 
2.55 

12.60 
4.52 
1.08 
3.67 
4.78 
.23 
9.52 
7.22 
5.89 

11.73 
5.48 
3.83 
7.37 
2.90 
2.29 
7.06 
3.03 
6.08 
8.40 
2.28 
6.50 
4.30 
3.15 
2.56 
2.11 
4.20 
4.82 
7.77 

10.97 
7.65 
12.45 
8.06 
1.15 
6.74 
5.28 
8.57 

22.45 

6.23 

7.06 

.66 

6.59 

6.61 

7.47 

13.59 

11.75 


6.81 
1.28 
2.60 


1.49 


.13 

.55 

3.77 

3.77 
2.16 
1.99 
.31 
2.69 


.36 
.73 

2.49 
.13 

1.26 

.95 
.54 

1.95 

4.03 

.65 

.47 

1.32 
.61 
.89 

.47 


1.29 

1.38 

.44 

1.39 
.79 
7.25 
1.82 
.18 
1.01 
1.88 
1.31 


.57 

.62 
.24 

.52 
1.65 
1.34 
2.48 

1.29 


25.57 
21.31 
22.16 
28.12 
8.69 
26.92 
6.56 
25.84 
12.80 
11.90 
19.50 
29.45 
14.50 
11.77 
6.43 
7.93 
22.32 
18.44 
5.69 
23.29 
13.50 
9.90 
24.92 
14.40 
4.30 
18.99 
26.60 
13.80 
5.99 
13.35 
28.91 
2.79 
13.06 
20.00 
32.69 
21.23 
26.41 
5.30 
17.70 
17.58 
12.10 
9.42 
12.80 
5.65 
13.52 
5.08 
8.98 
13.80 
8.71 
12.80 
9.70 
8.60 
16.00 
25.37 
23.63 
20.13 
28.56 
12.70 
16.58 

8.33 
17.47 
12.43 

6.66 
30.85 

7.60 
18.30 

3.40 


4.60 
4.73 


3.62 
14.17 


6.44 

6.58 
7.52 
4.11 
3.51 
6.59 
6.17 
4.84 
8.64 

7.04 
6.11 

10.37 
6.81 
2.55 
6.58 
6.11 
9.02 
7.66 

11.66 
8.29 


4.77 
6.47 
4.69 
3.46 
2.87 

5.31 

9.11 

6.18 


11.00 

8.64 
6.99 
2.38 


6.19 

1.72 
5.38 
2.35 

12.91 
6.22 

9.98 

5.11 

10.49 

15.36 
6.81 


6.23 


3.48 


.09 


.it; 


18.25 


5.19 


4.99 


5.14 
9.91 


.12 


.43 


.35 


4.07 


6.32 


.04 


2.31 
.12 


1.47 
.02 

1.33 
.08 
.40 

22 
!43 

.03 

.49 

1.39 

.31 

.27 
.39 
.03 
.20 

.28 
1.41 


.45 
.70 


1.16 
.29 
.36 

1.25 

1.41 


.11 
2.39 


.39 

1.59 

.60 

.38 


.70 


.83 


.07 


.23 
.05 


.08 


.02 


.31 

.48 
1.36 


.67 
.05 


.02 
.04 


.11 

.0!) 


.07 


.89 
1.14 


.55 
.06 


3.51 
1.00 


1.12 

.79 
.45 

1.46 
1.05 

.32 
1.42 
.51 
.54 
.08 
.41 

.07 

1.25 

.35 
.55 

1.18 


2.88 


1.48 


1.22 
.46 


.91 
.23 


.03 
.28 


.07 


.04 


11.30 
11.14 
13.50 
12.22 
10.09 
11.60 
10.80 
16.72 
11.00 
22.00 

9.84 
22.01 

1.33 
24.64 

9.99 
10.76 
19.29 
16.29 
14.14 
10.59 
10.20 

8.50 
10.06 
12.90 
17.40 
18.89 
11.50 
16.10 

9.84 
12.07 
15.55 
10.07 

9.23 
10.10 

8.32 


90 

91 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

99 

100 

101 

102 

103 


11.361104 

10.43  |105 

22.50J106 

13.85  107 

13.52  108 

10.40 

109 

16.36 

110 

10.80 

111 

21.60 

112 

6.61 

113 

17.91 

114 

18.21 

115 

12.60 

116 

35.47 

117 

15.70 

118 

7.28 

119 

13.54 

120 

13.08 

121 

10.79 

122 

9.05 

123 

23.55 

124 

13.46 

125 

12.03 

126 

8.29 

127 

17.06 

12S 

6.95 

129 

9.63 

130 

10.31 

131 

16.95 

132 

6.67 

133 

14.17 

134 

12.99 

135 

18.39 

136 

8.58 

137 

Labor,  September,  1902. 


25 


26  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Before  subjecting  to  interpretation  the  gross  amounts  of 
expenditures  for  1900  and  1901  for  the  various  items,  certain 
minor  corrections  of  these  amounts  were  made,  with  the  aid  of 
the  explanatory  notes  accompanyng  the  tables.  Wherever  an 
amount  not  properly  belonging  to  the  municipal  accounts,  as, 
for  instance,  expenditures  in  which  the  city  acted  as  agent  of 
the  county  in  fulfilling  some  function  of  county  government,  had 
been  included  in  the  gross  expenditures,  such  amounts  were 
deducted.  Wherever  an  amount  properly  belonging  to  the 
municipal  budget  had  not  been  included,  it  was  added  to  the 
amount  of  the  gross  expenditures.  These  additions  were 
practically  all  due  to  amounts  expended  by  state  and  county 
upon  public  schools.  The  total  number  of  corrections  was  very 
small — not  over  six  or  eight  on  either  of  the  two  tables. 

Transformation  of  Gross  Itemized  Expenditures  to  a  Percentile 
Basis. — The  first  operation  was  to  transform  the  gross  itemized 
expenditures  to  a  percentile  basis.  This  process,  even  by  the 
use  of  indispensable  labor-saving  devices,  was  of  necessity  a 
long  and  tedious  one.  These  transformed  percentile  amounts 
are  contained  in  Tables  1  and  2  (pages  18-25)  an(i  form  the 
immediate  basis  for  the  operations  which  are  described  later  on. 

The  primary  advantage  of  making  comparisons  on  a  per- 
centile basis  rather  than  on  one  of  gross  or  per  capita  amount 
consists  in  placing,  as  it  were,  all  cities  whether  large  or  small 
in  the  same  category,  thus  giving  a  definite  series  of  comparable 
statistics  for  the  city  as  a  type.  The  apparent  disadvantage 
consists  in  a  chance  of  placing  the  so-called  expensive,  efficient, 
and  well-governed  city  in  the  same  class  with  the  parsimonious 
and  possibly  inefficient  and  undesirable  community.  For  ex- 
ample, one  of  two  cities  of  about  equal  size  might  have  a  budget 
of  twice  the  amount  of  the  other ;  it  might  spend  twice  as  much 
as  the  other  on  its  schools,  fire,  health,  street,  and  police  de- 
partments. On  the  percentile  basis  these  two  cities  would  be 
placed  on  an  equality.  The  necessary  provisions  for  correcting 
this  disadvantage  will  be  explained  as  the  occasion  renders  it 
necessary  in  the  interpretation  of  the  results. 

V.     Variability  of  Expenditures 
General  Statement. — Even  a  superficial  examination  of  the 
tables,  giving  the  itemized  percentile  expenditures,  discloses  a 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


27 


remarkable  range  in  the  percentile  amounts  in  the  identical 
municipal  departments  of  the  different  cities.  This  variability 
is  not  confined  to  cities  of  great  differences  in  population  or 
location.  Even  within  a  comparatively  small  population  or 
territorial  group,  a  wide  divergence  in  the  percentile  distribu- 
tion of  the  total  amount  of  the  budget  among  the  various 
items  is  prominent. 

The  percentile  expenditures  assembled  from  the  data  of  Table 
1,  and  given  in  Table  3  are  illustrative  of  this  divergence.  The 
cities  concerned  were  selected  at  random.  Cities  7,  8,  and  9 
are  cities  of  from  350,000  to  400,000  population,  located  re- 
spectively in  the  eastern,  central,  and  extreme  western  portions 
of  the  country.  Cities  36,  37,  and  38  are  respectively  eastern, 
southern,  and  western  communities,  and  are  each  of  approxi- 
mately 100,000  population.  Cities  81,  95,  120,  and  126  are  New 
York  or  New  England  cities  of  from  30,000  to  50,000  population. 

Table  No.  3 

Typical  examples  of  variability  of  percentile  expenditures.      Statistics  for  year 

igoo.     (Read  across) 


City  No.1 

7 

8 

9 

3a 

37 

38 

81 

95 

120 

126 

Police    Department, 

Courts,  Jails,  etc . . 

10.55 

13.51 

16.78 

10.28 

11.20 

8.57 

9.92 

6.80 

5.23 

11.13 

Fire  Department 

9.83 

11.00 

9.88 

9.14 

9.41 

7.39 

7.66 

5.40 

5.39 

6.36 

Health  Department . 

1.54 

.72 

1.66 

.91 

7.46 

.71 

.71 

2.58 

1.82 

Hospitals  and  Chari- 

ties   

2.73 

2.60 

3.82 

.29 

3.55 

2.62 

6.35 

2.37 

23.70 

19.10 

20.90 

32.70 

15.90 

48.60 

39.50 

17.70 

21.90 

24  50 

Libraries  and  Mu- 

1.65 

1.65 

.75 

1.39 

.70 

1.42 

.24 

.99 

1.53 

61 

Parks 

.79 

3.21 

2.66 

4.08 

.23 

.64 

.24 

.11 

1.23 

.17 

.69 

.20 

.82 

.31 

1.03 

1.18 

1.46 

1.42 

1.48 

Municipal  Lighting.. 

5.15 

5.79 

3.94 

3.27 

5.17 

6.37 

5.18 

4.51 

4.63 

7.12 

1.20 

2.98 

2.70 

6.49 

3.06 

1.85 

2.01 

1.61 

1.86 

6.42 

Other  Street  Expen- 

ditures  

1.99 

4.02 

3.13 

5.91 

10.30 

2.06 

2.24 

4.60 

10.90 

6.01 

Garbage  removal 

1.50 

1.86 

.82 

.43 

1.65 

.52 

1.63 

.24 

Interest  on  debt. . . . 

14.40 

10.90 

.25 

4.89 

18.60 

8.06 

12.60 

25.00 

8.12 

16.10 

5.89 

5.86 

4.56 

19.50 

5.31 

12.30 

Electric-Light  Plants 

Docks  and  Wharves. 

.76 

.76 

Ferries  and  Bridges. 

2.25 

.18 

.10 

2.35 

.69 

.08 

.47 

.45 

.23 

.67 

.65 

.01 

.70 

1.36 

.02 

Other  items 

15.10 

15.40 

32.50 

19.40 

10.60 

12.30 

12.20 

8.56 

20.60 

2.92 

Total 

100.06 

100.00 

99.79 

99.88 

99.96 

100.12 

99.89 

100.08 

100.12 

100.02 

Tables  of  Frequency. — The  data  of  Table  4  present  the  so- 
called  tables  of  frequency  for  certain  items  of  expenditure,  for 
which  complete  and  fairly  reliable  information  was  given  in  the 
1  For  names  of  cities,  consult  Table  1,  pp.  18-21. 


28 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


original  tables  for  all,  or  approximately  all,  of  the  cities.  These 
items  were  selected  for  study  because  they  pertained  to  im- 
portant municipal  functions,  and  also  because  the  original  data, 
from  which  the  percentile  data  were  developed,  presented  these 
expenditures  in  a  clear  manner,  free  from  apparent  admixture 
with  other  items. 

Table  No.  4 

Tables  of  frequency.     Percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  operation 

All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population 

Fiscal  years  1000  and  igoi 


Per  cent. 


3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

9,9, 


(a) 
Police  Department. 

Frequency.  Frequency. 
1900 


Below 


1 

2 

3 

13 

15 

23 

14 

16 

3 

8 

6 

4 

3 

0 

1 

1 

0 

1 


1901 

0 

0 

2 

10 

24 

19 

22 

14 

7 

10 

2 

6 

1 

1 

1 

0 

1 


Average. 
1900-1901 

0 

2 

3 
10 
19 
17 
22 
13 

6 

9 

3 

4 

1 

1 

0 

1 

1 


Police  Department,  Police  Courts,  Jails, 
Workhouses,  Reformatories,  etc. 
Frequency.     Frequency.  Average. 
1900-1901 


1900 

0 

1 

4 

15 

13 

16 

22 

17 

10 

8 

4 

10 

5 

1 

4 

0 

0 

2 

1 


1901 

0 

0 

1 

9 

21 

16 

23 

15 

11 

16 

6 

6 

4 

3 

2 

1 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 


§2 

o  g 


.■a  & 

■cSP 


pri 

Total, 

114 

120 

112 

133 

137 

0  +3 

(e) 

Fire  Department. 

Street  Lighting. 

5  co 
*c  06 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

5 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

7 

12 

S^ 

3 

2 

0 

0 

14 

9 

4 

5 

5 

7 

25 

24 

t^co 

5 

16 

12 

14 

25 

33 

goo    _ 

6 

17 

16 

14 

20 

24 

<U  O  T3 

7 

21 

23 

23 

13 

10 

8 

18 

28 

23 

10 

9 

0  --  3 
Co 

9 

20 

17 

22 

5 

3 

10 
11 

13 
9 

15 
11 

12 

8 

2 
3 

5 
2 

12 

4 

4 

4 

13 

4 

2 

1 

n 

14 
15 

2 

2 
1 

3 

c 
O 

Total,  132 


137 


132 


130 


133 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 
Table  No.  4  {Continued) 


29 


Tables  of  frequency.     Percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion.    All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population 
Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 


to 

Schools. 
Per  cent.  Frequency.  Frequency. 
1900  1901 


Average. 
1900-1901 


(/) 
Libraries,  Museums,  Art  Galleries. 
Per  cent.  Frequency.  Frequency.  Average. 
1900  1901        1900-1901 


6 
7 
8 
9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
18 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 
36 
37 
38 
39 
40 
41 
42 
43 
44 
45 
46 
47 
48 


1 
1 
0 
0 
3 
1 
1 
2 
1 
5 
3 

10 
7 
3 
7 

11 
6 
7 
6 
8 
4 
3 
6 
1 
3 
4 
4 
3 
5 
4 
2 
3 
1 
3 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 

1 


1 

0 
0 

1 
1 
1 

2 
2 
1 
2 
2 
6 
6 
9 
10 
10 
5 
7 
3 
6 
6 
7 
8 
5 
4 
2 
2 
5 
4 
4 
4 
1 
2 


1  Below 
0 

1 
0 
o 

0 
2 
1 
3 
1 

2  1 
8  1 
6  1 
8  1 
8  1 

1 
1 
1 
1 
1 
2 
o 


7 
5 
7 
9 
10 
6 
3 
5 
3 
3 
2 
2 
4 
5 
4 
5 
1 
2 
2 

1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 


4 
3 
2 

9 
6 
7 
8 
5 
6 
2 
11 
7 
4 
4 
5 
4 
4 
6 
3 
2 

1 
0 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 
0 

1 


Total,  107 


4 
3 

2 

3 
7 

11 
9 
8 
5 

10 
7 
6 
6 
3 
9 
3 
4 
2 
1 
1 
2 
0 
2 
1 
1 


112 


rt  o 


™  c-i  a> 

2  ©I 

•g§3 

C  G  fl 
y  «  fe 


<1> 


03 


ft 

4*0 


h    V    V 

«  j)  u 


s 


o 


>  a. 


CO    *> 


Total,  132 


136 


132 


30  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Table  No.  4  (Continued) 

Tables    of  frequency.      Percentile   expenditures  for   maintenance  and  operation 

All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population 

Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 


Per  cent. 

(g) 

Health  Department. 

Frequency.     Frequency. 

1900                 1901 

(fe) 
Parks. 
Average.      Frequency.  Freqm 
1900-1901              1900           1901 

Below  .  1 

1 

1 

0 

2 

2 

.1 

1 

1 

0 

10 

8 

.2 

2 

3 

3 

9 

12 

.3 

4 

1 

2 

2 

5 

.4 

9 

4 

8 

6 

1 

.5 

9 

4 

7 

6 

5 

.6 

6 

14 

11 

5 

5 

.7 

14 

10 

8 

3 

6 

.8 

8 

15 

10 

5 

6 

.9 

15 

12 

11 

8 

10 

1.0 

5 

4 

9 

2 

3 

1.1 

4 

7 

8 

4 

4 

1.2 

9 

6 

3 

5 

1 

1.3 

7 

8 

5 

4 

6 

1.4 

3 

3 

6 

2 

5 

1.5 

2 

5 

4 

3 

3 

1.6 

4 

4 

9 

0 

4 

1.7 

0 

3 

3 

6 

2 

1.8 

6 

2 

2 

4 

2 

1.9 

2 

5 

2 

3 

2 

2.0 

2 

3 

1 

1 

2 

2.1 

0 

1 

0 

3 

1 

2.2 

2 

0 

0 

1 

5 

2.3 

2 

0 

1 

1 

4 

2.4 

1 

1 

2 

2 

1 

2.5 

3 

1 

1 

4 

0 

2.6 

1 

1 

2 

3 

1 

2.7 

0 

2 

2 

0 

1 

2.8 

0 

0 

2 

3 

3 

2.9 

1 

4 

0 

0 

1 

3.0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

1 

3.1 

0 

1 

0 

0 

1 

3.2 

0 

0 

1 

2 

0 

3.3 

0 

1 

1 

1 

0 

3.4 

0 

1 

1 

0 

2 

3.5 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3.6 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

3.7 

0 

0 

1 

0 

1 

3.8 

0 

0 

0 

0 

3.9 

0 

0 

0 

0 

4.0 

0 

0 

1 

1 

4.1 

0 

1 

0 

1 

4.2 

0 

2 

0 

1 

4.3 

0 

0 

4.4 

1 

1 

Also: 

Also: 

Total, 

114 

121 

at  5.8 

1 

at  5.3  1 
"  5.6  1 
"  5.7  1 
"  7.2  1 
"  8.4  1 

Total 

,    126 

136 

126 

1900-1901 


S.2 


r— « 

0 

cd 
u 

q 

+3 

a 

<u 

1 — 1 

0 

3 

>d 

a 

03 

cd 

m 

>^' 

+J 

0 

CD 

-t-> 

y^3 

rt 

73 

3 
O 

•r* 

O 

a 

C5 

"3 

> 

1-1 

0 

4J 

c 

c 

O 

cd 

c 

CD 

'<& 

CD 

O 

CD 

W 

CD 
Ih 

s 

0) 

en 

CO 

93 

ca 

Ih 

■6 

0 

£ 

„ 

>, 

+J 

"c3 

0 

u 

CO 

S  Z 

W 

+a 

ft 

u 

CD 

X 

0 

+a 

eg 

> 

CD 

C 
CD 
U 

-3 

c 

.4 

U 

+a 

O 

+-■ 

H 

HH 

CD 

CD 

O 

— 

ft 

-t-> 

Cfl 

%s 

e 

CD 

6« 

3 

'Q 

2 

c 

c 

0 

CD 

a 

0 
cd 

•d 

CJ 

r^ 

0 

Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  31 

Explanation  of  Tables  of  Frequency. — Table  4(a)  contains  the 
facts  of  the  distribution  of  the  percentile  expenditures  for  the 
police  department.  Column  1  gives  the  range  of  percentile  ex- 
penditures; column  2  gives  the  number  of  cities,  in  accordance 
with  the  statistics  of  Table  1,  spending  any  certain  per  cent,  of 
their  gross  expenditures  for  the  maintenance  and  operation  of 
the  police  department  for  the  year  1900.1  Column  3  gives 
similar  information  for  the  year  1901;  column  4  represents  the 
average  percentile  expenditures  for  the  years  1900  and  1901. 
The  totals  are  of  the  number  of  cities  for  which  information  is 
given  for  any  year.  Thus  the  first  line  of  Table  4(a)  would  read 
as  follows:  In  1900,  one  city  spent  2  %  2  of  its  gross  expendi- 
tures for  maintenance  and  operation  upon  its  police  depart- 
ment; no  city  spent  this  per  cent,  in  1901;  and  there  were  no 
cities  with  an  average  percentile  expenditure  of  2  %  for  the 
police  department.  The  fourth  line  of  this  table  would  read  as 
follows:  In  1900,  13  cities  each  spent  5  %  of  their  gross  ex- 
penditures for  municipal  maintenance  and  operation  for  the 
maintenance  and  operation  of  police  service;  in  1901,  10  cities 
each  spent  this  per  cent. ;  according  to  the  average  of  the  two 
years,  10  cities  spent  this  per  cent. 

Table  4  (a)  does  not  contain  the  data  for  all  the  cities.  This 
was  due  to  the  fact  that  many  cities  do  not  separate  in  their 
accounts  the  expenditures  for  the  police  department  from  those 
incurred  by  reason  of  jails,  police  courts,  etc.  The  data  for 
this  combined  item  are  presented  in  Table  4(6). 

The  remaining  divisions  of  the  table  are  similar  in  nature  to 
division  (a)  and  need  no  further  explanation. 

Graphical  Representation  of  Variability. — Figures  1  to  io, 
pp.  32-34,  represent  diagrammatically  the  tables  of  frequency. 
In  the  case  of  those  items  for  which  an  average  percentile  expen- 
diture has  been  calculated,  the  diagrams  reflect  the  numerical 
facts  of  this  average.     Where  no  average  has  been  calculated 

1  Throughout  these  explanations  the  year  1900  has  reference  to  the 
data  contained  in  the  Bulletin  36  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  published 
in  September,  1901;  the  year  1901,  to  Bulletin  42,  published  in  Sep- 
tember, 1902. 

2  Throughout  all  the  tables  of  frequency,  any  percentile  figure  must 
be  read  to  mean  from  that  figure  to  the  next  higher  one.  Thus  2  %  really 
means  a  point  between  2  %  and  3  %;  3  %,  a  point  between  3  %  and 
4  %.  etc. 


3  4 


3  4 


PIG.    1. 


£Z3=i-../ 


08       11 


22 


nil 


F  I  G.  2. 


Ln 


"as"        W 


i-H. 


18 


FIG.    S. 


2   3 


83 


14 


ru 


n 


F  I  G.  4. 


m 


n  n 


2    S        tD  33    I 

Surfaces  of  Frequency— Percentile  Expenditures 
Fig.  i.     Police  Department,  Police  Courts,  Jails,  etc.     Median,  8.8. 

(Heavy  line)   1900,       (jotted  line)    1901. 

Fig.  2.     Police  Department.  Median,  8.2. 

Average  of  1900  and  1901. 
Fig.  3.     Fire  Department.  Median,  8.3. 

Average  of  1900  and  1901. 
Fig.  4.     He  alth  Department.  Median,  1.03. 

Average  of  1900  and  1901. 
32 


F  I  G.  5. 


If 


tJ 


j^J 


[L 


a 

6 


LnJ 


in 


17 


M 

—t— 

24 


inn 

48 


J~l 


Fia  6. 


ri 


D_L" 

6    9 


r^ 


J. 

25 


Ul 


in 

46 


J! 


n 


OIL 


nrulr 


rU 


f  i  a  7. 


Jin 


M 


tb 


6    9 


24 


o 


48 


Surfaces  of  Frequency — Percentile  Expenditures 


Fig.  5.  Schools,  1900. 
Fig.  6.  Schools,  1901. 
Fig.  7.     Schools,  average  1900  and  1901. 


Median,  23.6. 
Median,  24.96. 
Median,  24.3. 


33 


1 


V 


fi  a.  8. 


[ 


IV 


M 


0]        .6     V) 


ULn 


i_n 


h 

25 


fl 


n 


L 


A 


H 


Ln 


i„ 


f  i  a  9. 


n 


Lr 


0)  7    10  17 


Jb 


nn  n  n  n 


4A 


FIG.  10. 


0   1 


Surfaces  of  Frequency — Percentile  Expenditures 
Libraries,  Art  Galleries,  and  Museums,  1901.  Median,  1.01. 


Fig. 

Fig.    9.     Parks  and  Gardens,  1900 

Fig.  10.     Municipal  Lighting,  1900 


Median,  1.04. 
Median,  5.5. 


34 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  35 

the  frequencies  of  both  years  are  presented,  the  heavy  con- 
tinuous line  representing  the  frequencies  for  the  first  year,  and 
the  broken  line  the  frequencies  for  the  second  year.  In  the  case 
of  the  expenditures  for  schools  the  three  sets  of  frequencies 
are  represented  separately.  The  horizontal  distance  represents 
in  every  case  the  per  cents.,  while  the  vertical  distance  represents 
the  number  of  cases. 

These  graphical  representations  enable  one  to  comprehend 
at  a  glance  some  of  the  more  significant  characteristics  of  the 
tables  of  frequencies,  which  are  often  concealed  from  the  un- 
accustomed observer  in  the  distribution  series  of  Table  4. 

VI.     Measurement  of  Variability 

In  their  present  distributed  and  graphically  represented  con- 
dition, the  measures  entering  into  the  tables  of  frequency  merely 
give  us  an  index  to  the  principal,  gross  facts,  viz.,  the  spread 
of  the  measures.  That  is,  we  know  that,  of  the  cities  studied, 
some  spend  3  %,  some  4  %,  some  5  %,  and  so  on,  until  we  find 
one  city  spending  18  %  i  of  its  total  expenditures  for  the  main- 
tenance of  its  police  service  (Table  4(a)) .  If  the  expenditures  for 
the  police  department,  police  courts,  jails,  etc.,  are  placed  in  a 
single  amount,  this  variation  is  found  to  be  from  4  %  to  22  % 
of  the  gross  total  (Table  4  (6)).  For  schools,  we  find  it  to  be 
from  6  %  to  46  %  of  the  gross  total  (Table  4  (e)).  These  facts, 
while  perhaps  interesting  enough  in  themselves,  give  us  but  a 
partial  insight  into  the  true  condition  of  affairs.  As  they  now 
stand,  they  do  not  enable  us  to  describe  with  any  exactness  the 
character  of  the  different  variabilities,  nor  to  state  any  of  the 
definite  relations  which  may  exist  between  the  different  items 
of  expenditure. 

There  are  at  least  three  methods  of  attaining  some  definite 
and  comparable  measures  of  the  variability. 

Method  of  the  Probable  Error. — By  the  first  method,  the  ex- 
treme cases,  i.e.,  those  very  high  and  those  very  low,  may  be 
excluded.  Excluding  in  this  manner  from  our  tables  of  fre- 
quency the  low  25  %  and  high  25  %  of  the  cases  under  each 

1  It  is  evident  that  the  figures  in  the  column  of  average  percentile 
expenditures  are  more  reliable,  and  more  nearly  indicative  of  the  real 
measures,  than  the  percentile  expenditures  for  any  one  year,  hence  wher- 
ever possible  in  these  explanations  the  average  figures  have  been  used. 


36  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

item,  there  would  remain  a  middle  50  %.  It  is  evident  that 
the  limits  of  this  middle  50  %  of  the  cases  give  a  truer 
measure  of  the  variability  of  the  group  of  cities  in  any  single 
item  of  expenditure  than  the  limits  within  which  all  the  cases 
lie.  This  is  particularly  true  with  such  items  as  schools,  li- 
braries, health,  and  parks,  in  which  a  wide  range  of  variability 
is  exhibited. 

Actually  performed,  and  calling  the  new  limits  +  and  —  P.  E. 
(Probable  Error),  the  following  table  of  results  would  be  found: 

Table  4a 

Table  of  measures  of  variability  of  percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance 

and  operation.     All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  jo,ooo 

population.     Fiscal  years  igoo  and  iqoi 

50  %  of  the  cases  lie  between  2  P.  E. 

Police  Department  (average) 6 .  93  %  and    9.82%  1 .  89 

Police  Department,  Courts,  Jails,  etc. 

(1901) 7.43 

Fire  Department  (average) 6.72 

Municipal  Lighting  (1901) 4. 39 

Libraries,  Museums,  etc.  (average) . .        .66 

Health  Department  (average) 7 

Parks  (1901) 54 

Schools  (average) 19 .  65 

Interest  on  Debt  (average) 8 .  84 

In  other  words,  while  the  cities  in  1901  exhibit  a  variability 
of  19  %  (from  4  %  to  23  %)  in  their  expenditures  for  police  de- 
partment, courts,  jails,  etc.  (Table  4  (&)),  one  half  of  these  cities 
lie  within  a  variation  of  but  3.5  %  (from  7.5  %  to  11  %).  Also 
while  the  average  percentile  expenditures  for  two  years  of  132 
cities  for  schools  exhibit  a  variability  of  40  %  (Table  4  (e)),  one 
half  of  these  cities  lie  within  a  variation  of  but  11  %  (from  19.65 
%  to  30.58  %).  Although,  from  the  data  at  hand,  it  would  be 
entirely  correct  to  say  that,  among  American  cities  having 
30,000  or  more  population,  the  expenditures  for  schools  varied 
from  6  %  to  46  %  of  the  total  expenditures  for  maintenance  and 
operation,  such  a  statement  would  be  manifestly  unfair  as  de- 
fining the  essential  characteristics  of  the  group. 

Method  of  Deviation  from  Central  Tendency. — The  second 
method  of  measuring  the  variability  of  expenditures  in  any 
item  is  by  means  of  the  amount  by  which  each  member  of  the 
group  of  cities  deviates  from  some  central  tendency,  such  as  the 
average  or  the  median.     The  median  is  the  point  above  and 


11.22 

3.79 

9.70 

2.98 

6.72 

2.33 

1.40 

.74 

1.6 

.9 

1.90 

1.36 

30.58 

10.97 

19.15 

10.31 

Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  37 

below  which  50  %  of  the  cases  lie.  By  reason  of  its  lack  of 
ambiguity  and  less  likelihood  of  being  influenced  by  extreme 
cases,  the  median  is  preferable  to  the  average  under  conditions 
such  as  the  present. 

Table  5  contains  the  medians,  and  the  deviations  from  the 
medians,  of  the  average  percentile  expenditures  for  1900  and 
1901,  for  the  eight  indicated  items.  The  first  line  of  the  table 
contains  the  average  median  expenditure  for  the  designated 
items.  That  is  to  say,  one  half  of  the  cities  spent  more  than 
8.20  %  of  their  total  expenditures  for  police  service;  one  half 
of  the  cities  spent  less  than  8.20  %.  The  average  median  ex- 
penditure for  schools  was  24.31  %;  and  so  on.  Opposite  the 
number  of  each  city  is  placed  the  amount  by  which  the  per- 
centile expenditure  of  that  city  for  any  particular  item  deviates, 
above  or  below  the  median  percentile  expenditure  for  that 
item.  For  example,  city  22  had  an  average  percentile  ex- 
penditure for  schools  of  .96  %  below  the  average  median  per- 
centile expenditure  of  the  entire  group  of  cities.  All  deviations 
below  the  median  are  indicated  by  a  minus  sign.  All  devia- 
tions without  the  sign  are  to  be  interpreted  as  plus. 

Having  thus  obtained  the  individual  measures  of  the  de- 
viations, it  is  possible  to  combine  these  measures  and  reach  cer- 
tain conclusions  regarding  the  character  of  the  deviations  for 
the  entire  group.  Such  group  measurements  would  be  the 
average  amount  of  the  deviation,  i.e.,  the  sum  of  all  the  de- 
viations divided  by  the  number  of  each;  or  the  limits  within 
which  lie  the  deviations  of  one  half  of  the  cities  from  the  cen- 
tral tendency  of  any  item  of  expenditure ;  or  a  more  accurate 
measure  yet  of  this  group  deviation,  the  square  root  of  the  aver- 
age of  the  squares  of  the  deviations  of  the  individual  measures 
from  their  median — the  so-called  mean  square  deviation,  or 
standard  deviation. 

As  these  measures  are  concerned  more  directly  with  the 
methods  of  calculating  the  group  relationships,  an  explanation 
of  their  meaning  and  importance  will  be  reserved  for  the  section 
on  correlation.  The  main  observation  to  be  made  here  is  the 
necessity  of  utilizing  some  definite  measures  of  the  amount  of 
the  deviation  of  the  expenditure  for  any  item  from  the  central 
tendency  of  that  expenditure  before  it  is  possible  to  generalize 
concerning  the  characteristics  of  the  total  number  of  cities. 


Table  No.   5 

Medians,  and  deviations  from  medians,  of  percentile  expenditures,  for  main- 
tenance and  operation,  of  all  cities  in  the  United  States,  having  a  popu- 
lation of  30,000  and  over.     Average  for  fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 


'0 

"o 
6 

a 

1 

u 

a 
•d 

<L> 

"3 

8  - 

a.™ 

<D      .     ■ 

.2  0  0 

CJ 

6 
+j 

u 
aj 

a 
<u 

■a 

a 
u 

£ 

c 
0 

s 

u 
CS 

ft 

<U 

*o 
0 

.5 

a 

a 
'a 

3 

s 

G 
0 
-d 
u 
n) 
60 

■d 
C 

CS 

J2 

u 
ai 
Ph 

0 
0 
.c 
0 

i 

S 

•a 

c 

n! 

<£  "j 
'u  E 
aj  3 

3 

>> 
'3 

0 
(5 

Median 

8.20 

8.85 

8.27 

1.03 

5.52 

1.05 

24.31 

1.02 

Median 

1 

1.83 

2.20 

-3.64 

-    .01 

-2.98 

.48 

-    7.25 

-    .38 

1 

2 

9.73 

10.36 

-2.42 

* 

-1.86 

2.31 

10.02 

-    .10 

2 

3 

6.89 

10.80 

-2.88 

.36 

.57 

1.45 

-   7.07 

.32 

3 

4 

9.89 

10.54 

.14 

.52 

.68 

.26 

-   7.15 

-    .58 

4 

5 

.14 

5.40 

-2.21 

-    .16 

-1.85 

1.16 

-10.07 

.40 

5 

6 

3.72 

5.30 

-2.01 

.08 

-    .77 

1.97 

-    7.30 

-    .73 

6 

7 

.47 

1.98 

1.72 

.27 

-    .26 

.16 

.63 

.67 

7 

8 

5.11 

4.86 

3.10 

-    .27 

.35 

2.27 

-   4.85 

.65 

8 

9 

5.90 

7.61 

2.52 

.37 

-1.40 

1.70 

-    3.96 

-   .24 

9 

10 

1.21 

2.54 

-    .41 

-    .35 

-    .01 

-    .37 

-6.56 

.24 

10 

11 

.37 

-    .28 

.82 

.42 

-    .33 

1.90 

-   9.76 

.66 

11 

12 

2.71 

-2.36 

-2.05 

.08 

-    .45 

-    .81 

-13.55 

-    .81 

12 

13 

6.48 

6.13 

5.89 

.00 

-2.53 

1.74 

-14.00 

.51 

13 

14 

1.05 

1.13 

3.50 

.02 

.40 

.60 

-   3.54 

.67 

14 

15 

4.07 

9.12 

-3.74 

.24 

-1.16 

.22 

-   3.54 

-    .87 

15 

16 

* 

1.58 

-1.15 

.55 

-    .49 

-    .94 

-4.26 

-    .18 

16 

17 

* 

2.39 

-2.28 

-    .83 

-1.30 

-    .82 

-11.86 

-    .20 

17 

18 

1.62 

4.76 

.07 

-    .74 

-    .38 

.64 

-   6.12 

* 

18 

19 

-    .84 

-    .64 

2.86 

-    .19 

-    .34 

1.38 

1.01 

.41 

19 

20 

2.06 

1.10 

1.58 

-    .44 

2.68 

.73 

-4.66 

-    .73 

20 

21 

1.28 

.78 

2.13 

-    .21 

1.14 

3.00 

8.64 

1.18 

21 

22 

2.40 

2.89 

2.19 

1.52 

-2.07 

1.95 

-      .96 

-    .04 

22 

23 

-    .57 

.33 

-    .06 

-    .63 

1.23 

1.32 

-    2.84 

-    .39 

23 

24 

-2.37 

-2.56 

-1.22 

.02 

2.26 

-    .12 

-   7.77 

-    .91 

24 

25 

-    .17 

-    .17 

.02 

.41 

-    .11 

2.63 

12.26 

.26 

25 

26 

1.21 

-    .24 

-    .79 

-    .70 

-    .50 

.97 

1.31 

-    .30 

26 

27 

.57 

-1.22 

-    .45 

-    .18 

-    .88 

.50 

.41 

.52 

27 

28 

1.21 

-    .39 

-1.25 

.15 

-1.65 

-    .45 

-    1.28 

-    .44 

28 

29 

-2.21 

-2.86 

-1.55 

.19 

-    .65 

-    .50 

-   2.76 

.28 

29 

30 

-1.41 

-1.40 

.17 

.06 

1.63 

.58 

-   4.47 

.53 

30 

31 

5.35 

5.85 

1.56 

-    .50 

.20 

.41 

2.16 

.02 

31 

32 

1.80 

1.44 

.63 

-    .41 

1.21 

.99 

1.03 

.33 

32 

33 

.39 

-    .26 

-    .68 

.22 

.56 

-    .89 

-   5.16 

-    .04 

33 

34 

1.49 

1.97 

1.57 

-    .10 

-1.69 

.02 

-1.28 

.02 

34 

35 

-2.33 

-2.23 

-    .13 

-    .48 

-    .10 

.31 

2.05 

.21 

35 

36 

.77 

.73 

.54 

-    .13 

-    .96 

3.10 

8.92 

.32 

36 

37 

* 

2.30 

1.33 

* 

-    .25 

-    .77 

-   8.66 

-    .38 

37 

38 

-    .35 

-    .50 

-    .83 

-    .12 

.72 

-    .44 

20.69 

.34 

38 

39 

1.75 

1.90 

.20 

.57 

1.05 

-    .16 

.17 

.09 

39 

40 

2.89 

2.69 

1.58 

.00 

.12 

1.77 

-   2.93 

-    .48 

40 

41 

* 

-3.02 

-4.08 

-    .15 

-2.21 

-    .08 

-   3.42 

-    .18 

41 

42 

-2.94 

-3.15 

-    .37 

-    .58 

-    .78 

.03 

1.14 

* 

42 

43 

* 

4.07 

2.08 

* 

1.25 

.73 

-   9.90 

-    .47 

43 

44 

-    .13 

.35 

3.35 

.40 

-3.29 

1.67 

4.46 

-    .30 

44 

45 

.40 

1.29 

.02 

-    .29 

-    .15 

-    .83 

8.89 

.05 

45 

46 

.13 

-    .17 

-    .88 

-    .30 

-2.89 

.74 

-14.09 

-    .65 

46 

47 

* 

2.42 

2.23 

.89 

.15 

* 

-   3.66 

-    .56 

47 

48 

-1.26 

-1.32 

.02 

.09 

-3.08 

.09 

-    3.08 

.35 

48 

49 

.57 

.45 

.25 

-    .18 

-1.37 

1.01 

1.02 

-    .23 

49 

50 

.25 

-    .40 

-1.98 

-    .43 

4.06 

.85 

5.14 

-    .45 

50 

51 

4.10 

3.98 

-2.70 

-    .05 

1.40 

1.26 

3.19 

.03 

51 

52 

4.01 

7.29 

1.98 

-    .43 

4.25 

-    .87 

2.49 

-    .84 

52 

53 

2.90 

2.66 

1.19 

-    .21 

-2.12 

.67 

.14 

-    .37 

53 

54 

.33 

.74 

-    .02 

-    .27 

1.78 

1.52 

-    1.11 

.65 

54 

55 

-1.82 

-2.97 

-    .72 

-    .12 

-1.37 

-    .41 

-   5.35 

.45 

55 

56 

2.67 

3.14 

2.88 

.66 

3.14 

-    .02 

14.94 

.96 

56 

57 

-    .52 

-1.17 

-1.26 

3.35 

-1.25 

-    .24 

-2.24 

.45 

57 

58 

2.87 

2.22 

-    .80 

1.84 

-    .50 

1.03 

-    2.74 

.38 

58 

59 

-1.80 

-1.76 

2.03 

3.39 

1.21 

2.04 

14.39 

.31 

59 

60 

-2.73 

-3.38 

-    .11 

-    .48 

-    .22 

.95 

4.50 

1.47 

60 

61 

* 

-3.00 

-2.45 

-    .18 

-    .34 

-    .11 

2.38 

.40 

61 

62 

3.11 

2.86 

-1.80 

1.62 

2.40 

-    .79 

-   4.37 

* 

62 

63 

5.38 

5.15 

1.70 

-    .28 

-2.23 

-    .48 

-    1.05 

.02 

63 

64 

.69 

.37 

1.87 

-    .60 

-    .31 

-    .80 

6.27 

* 

64 

65 

-1.32 

-1.53 

5.29 

.64 

3.65 

-    .19 

-   5.01 

-    .18 

65 

66 

-1.87 

-2.16 

2.90 

.59 

4.06 

-    .29 

.85 

-    .02 

66 

67 

1.14 

2.78 

1.22 

-    .03 

.58 

2.48 

5.74 

.63 

67 

68 

5.54 

4.57 

-     .15 

.95 

-    .84 

.25 

-11.78 

-     .93 

68 

*  No  data  given  in  Tables  1  and  2. 
38 


Table  No.   5  {Continued) 
Medians,  and  deviations  from  medians,  of  percentile  expenditures,  for  main- 
tenance and  operation,  of  all  cities  in  the  United  States,  having  a  popu- 
lation of  30,000  and  over.     Average  for  fiscal  years  iqoo  and  igoi 


>, 
°3 

6 
2 

c 
0 

I 

a 
a 

*o 
0 

0 

ft 

■tf.il 

OJ  0 

fti 

H>      -    A 

4>  5  3 

.«oo 
o°" 

ft 

B 

u 

ca 

a 

V 

•a 
a 

ft 

c 
0 

I 

u. 

a 
a> 
•d 

0 

X 

si 

H 
a 

"B 
3 

w 
C 
O 

•a 

u 

a 

c 

u 

ai 

ft 

0 
0 

X. 

1 

a 

a 

w     ■ 

■83 

U   <u 

3 

'3 

"8 

6 
2 

69 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

69 

70 

-3.24 

-    .03 

-2.95 

-    .34 

-1.67 

-    .10 

-   7.68 

-    .28 

70 

71 

* 

-    .05 

-     .45 

.97 

* 

1.23 

-   3.70 

* 

71 

72 

-4.45 

-3.68 

.80 

-    .45 

-3.16 

.14 

-    1.70 

-    .26 

72 

73 

-1.17 

-1.31 

3.58 

.37 

2.81 

-    .22 

7.35 

.75 

73 

74 

1.75 

1.23 

-3.58 

* 

-1.00 

* 

-      .62 

* 

74 

75 

1.27 

1.36 

1.71 

-    .17 

5.11 

-    .91 

14.94 

* 

75 

76 

.53 

.72 

-1.26 

1.46 

.60 

-    .65 

.14 

-    .68 

76 

77 

-1.10 

-1.75 

-3.36 

3.21 

2.17 

-    .54 

10.19 

* 

77 

78 

-2.39 

-3.04 

-    .49 

-    .59 

-    .84 

-    .15 

-    5.66 

-    .27 

78 

79 

1.35 

1.73 

-3.82 

1.39 

.40 

1.50 

-   6.11 

-    .53 

79 

80 

-    .84 

-1.43 

-2.48 

1.85 

-3.17 

.20 

-17.40 

-    .83 

80 

81 

1.08 

1.56 

-    .34 

-    .36 

-    .24 

-    .48 

16.68 

-    .57 

81 

82 

-1.97 

-2.37 

.94 

-    .32 

-1.61 

-    .46 

1.74 

-    .42 

82 

83 

.32 

-    .34 

6.35 

.08 

2.12 

1.82 

5.40 

1.08 

83 

84 

2.87 

3.07 

.40 

.65 

.73 

-    .80 

11.01 

-    .47 

84 

85 

* 

-    .50 

1.37 

* 

-2.92 

-    .68 

-    6.24 

* 

85 

86 

-    .32 

.54 

-    .88 

1.64 

-1.86 

* 

-   4.56 

* 

86 

87 

-    .19 

-    .05 

3.76 

-    .64 

2.06 

-    .40 

2.97 

.54 

87 

88 

-    .02 

.50 

.92 

.88 

-    .50 

-    .44 

-   5.97 

* 

88 

89 

-    .84 

-    .78 

-1.29 

-    .68 

-    .43 

-    .91 

10.24 

-    .60 

89 

90 

-1.27 

-1.92 

-1.78 

-    .39 

5.57 

* 

10.02 

* 

90 

91 

-4.10 

-4.23 

-    .28 

-    .70 

-1.17 

-1.02 

9.86 

.12 

91 

92 

-1.86 

-2.53 

.14 

.30 

-    .95 

* 

-   3.11 

.35 

92 

93 

-1.02 

-1.22 

-2.12 

.53 

5.16 

-    .22 

11.84 

-    .62 

93 

94 

3.51 

3.83 

2.93 

.55 

-    .52 

* 

-   6.56 

* 

94 

95 

-1.29 

-1.93 

-2.68 

* 

-    .82 

-    .81 

-   5.61 

-    .10 

95 

96 

-1.68 

-2.03 

-    .01 

-    .29 

.61 

* 

8.84 

* 

96 

97 

-    .56 

.09 

.83 

.06 

* 

* 

-      .99 

.15 

97 

98 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

98 

99 

3.55 

6.35 

1.09 

.58 

-    .90 

-    .33 

-11.31 

* 

99 

100 

* 

6.07 

5.83 

.76 

-    .93 

* 

11.95 

* 

100 

101 

-1.42 

-1.17 

-1.69 

-    .37 

3.26 

1.28 

3.71 

.06 

101 

102 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

102 

103 

-4.29 

-4.62 

-2.74 

-    .60 

* 

-    .24 

-   7.11 

-    .47 

103 

104 

* 

-3.28 

.24 

-    .43 

.64 

.22 

-   3.02 

.68 

104 

105 

-1.63 

-1.37 

3.62 

.12 

-3.66 

-    .28 

.51 

-    .54 

105 

106 

-    .26 

-    .17 

2.11 

.42 

1.57 

-    .51 

10.85 

.90 

106 

107 

-    .42 

-1.06 

.49 

-     .57 

1.17 

-    .72 

3.05 

* 

107 

108 

-    .44 

1.54 

2.08 

.31 

1.74 

.83 

4.11 

.64 

108 

109 

-    .91 

-1.57 

2.53 

-    .77 

1.00 

.31 

5.19 

.27 

109 

110 

-1.61 

-2.25 

-2.36 

1.78 

1.05 

.02 

-   3.72 

.25 

110 

111 

.03 

-    .35 

-3.54 

-    .55 

2.31 

* 

21.89 

* 

111 

112 

* 

-    .70 

4.30 

.59 

3.17 

.29 

.79 

-    .64 

112 

113 

* 

-3.81 

.43 

-    .27 

2.73 

* 

14.01 

* 

113 

114 

-    .63 

-1.28 

-    .94 

.65 

-    .71 

.93 

17.39 

* 

114 

115 

* 

.57 

1.63 

.14 

.28 

* 

6.33 

* 

115 

116 

.74 

1.13 

4.37 

-    .46 

.81 

* 

4.54 

-    .87 

116 

117 

-1.87 

-2.52 

-2.15 

1.35 

-    .46 

.80 

-    2.13 

-    .21 

117 

118 

1.53 

.87 

-2.57 

.31 

3.35 

.34 

11.44 

* 

118 

119 

1.81 

1.16 

-1.04 

-    .11 

6.07 

-    .87 

12.68 

* 

119 

120 

-3.10 

-3.25 

-2.56 

.86 

-    .58 

-    .31 

.69 

.61 

120 

121 

-    .98 

-    .94 

.24 

1.73 

-1.87 

.75 

9.43 

.57 

121 

122 

-1.96 

-2.61 

-2.89 

.76 

-    .54 

-    .63 

-    6.  Mi 

.43 

122 

123 

-3.00 

-3.25 

-1.72 

.08 

-1.37 

-    .74 

3.28 

-    .43 

123 

124 

-    .18 

-    .66 

-5.85 

-    .60 

1.06 

* 

1.26 

-    .17 

124 

125 

* 

.06 

1.01 

-    .38 

4.02 

* 

-    5.24 

* 

125 

126 

.76 

.67 

-1.31 

2.74 

2.40 

-    .88 

-    1.77 

* 

126 

127 

-1.42 

-2.07 

-2.38 

-    .40 

.66 

-    .48 

-   2.28 

.57 

127 

128 

-2.84 

-2.96 

-    .05 

.75 

-3.09 

* 

1.86 

-    .21 

128 

129 

-2.67 

-2.75 

1.02 

-    .39 

1.91 

-    .80 

11.17 

1.00 

129 

130 

.25 

-    .24 

-2.57 

-    .23 

-3.75 

-    .79 

-      .05 

.39 

130 

131 

* 

-1.57 

1.39 

-    .47 

1.35 

-    .34 

8.22 

-    .47 

131 

132 

3.48 

4.35 

1.72 

1.73 

-1.11 

* 

12.34 

1.35 

132 

133 

* 

1.86 

-    .75 

1.58 

-    .31 

* 

-15.47 

* 

133 

134 

* 

-2.56 

-1.70 

-    .80 

3.75 

* 

1.64 

-    .38 

134 

135 

* 

2.60 

3.96 

-    .55 

.82 

.51 

-   7.88 

-    .87 

135 

*  No  data  given  in  Tables  1  and  2. 
39 


40 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


Coefficient  of  Variability. — It  is  evident  that  the  mere  gross 
percentile  figures  do  not  permit  us  to  say  which  one  of  the 
items  under  consideration  tends  to  vary  the  most.  Neither 
would  a  comparison  of  the  limits  within  which  50  %  of  the 
cities  lie  give  a  valid  standard.  Thus  it  would  be  manifestly 
illogical  to  conclude,  since  the  average  percentile  expenditures 
for  schools  vary  from  6%  to  46  %  (Table  4(e)),  a  spread  of  41  %, 
and  since  the  average  percentile  expenditures  for  street  lighting 
vary  from  1%  to  11%  (Table  4(d)),  a  spread  of  11%,  that, 
therefore,  the  expenditures  for  schools  are  nearly  four  times 
(41:11)  as  variable  as  those  for  street  lighting.  In  the  same 
manner  would  the  fallacy  of  measuring  the  relative  variability 
of  expenditures  by  ratio  of  the  P.  E.'s  appear.  By  the  reduction 
of  all  the  variabilities  to  a  common  unit  of  measurement,  it  is 
possible  to  place  the  expenditures  for  each  item  on  a  comparable 
basis  as  far  as  the  quality  of  the  variation  is  concerned.  De- 
veloped according  to  the  probably  best  formula1  these  coefficients 
of  variability  are  given  in  the  fourth  column  of  Table  6.  It  will 
be  noticed  that  each  item  retains,  in  its  tendency  to  vary,  in 
each  year,  an  almost  identical  position  with  reference  to  the 
other  items. 

Table  No.  6 

Table  of  medians,  average  deviations,  standard  deviations,  and  coefficients 
of  variability.  Percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  operation. 
Fiscal  years  iqoo  and  iqoi.  All  cities  in  United  States  above  30,000 
population 


Median. 

Average 
Deviation. 

Standard 
Deviation. 

Coefficient  of 
Variability. 

Police  Department .  . 

Police     Department, 

Courts,  Jails,  etc.. 

Fire  Department 

Health  Department  . 
Schools 

1900 
8.02 

8.82 
8.23 
.93 
23.60 
1.02 
1.04 
5.51 

1901 

8.28 

8.88 
8.46 
1.07 
24.96 
1.02 
1.04 
5.56 

1900 
2.17 

2.49 

1.99 
.56 

6.39 
.48 
.84 

1.69 

1901 
2.30 

2.37 

1.80 
.79 

6.30 
.44 
.80 

1.65 

1900 

2.96 

3.37 

2.45 
.91 

8.09 
.58 

1.16 

2.15 

1901   j     1900       1901 

2.59    .767     .799 

3.20;    .839      .795 
2.28:    .693      .619 
1.401    .583     .768 
7.561.32     1.06 

Parks 

.551    .483      .442 
1.06     .82        .784 

Street  Lighting 

2.10 

.719      .696 

Relationship  of  the  Variabilities. — If  the  different  sections  of 
Table  5  were  examined  carefully,  or  even  better,  if  the  tables  of 


1  v=- 


KMedian 

pp.  98  to  102,  especially  p.  102. 


See  Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Mental  and  Social  Measurements, 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  41 

the  deviations  of  the  percentile  expenditures  for  schools  from  the 
median  expenditure  were  compared,  city  by  city,  with  the 
deviations  from  the  median  expenditure  in  another  item,  as, 
for  instance,  libraries  and  museums,  it  would  frequently  be 
found  that  a  plus  deviation  in  one  item  would  be  accompanied 
by  a  plus  deviation  in  the  other  item  and,  vice  versa,  a  minus 
deviation  in  one  item  would  be  accompanied  by  a  minus 
deviation  in  the  other.  This  quality  of  likeness  would  by  no 
means  always  be  found.  But  it  frequently  would.  On  the  other 
hand,  such  a  comparison  with  other  items  might  reveal  a  de- 
gree of  unlikeness ;  with  still  other  items  the  relationships  might 
seem  to  be  in  a  state  of  neutrality  or  confusion. 

At  this  point,  some  statistical  manipulation  which  would 
permit  these  positive,  negative,  or  neutral  relationships  to  be 
expressed  in  some  significant  manner  would  be  of  inestimable 
service.  If  there  is  a  positive  relationship  between  the  per- 
centile expenditures  for  schools  and  the  percentile  expenditures 
for  street  lighting,  or  libraries,  or  parks,  or  any  other  of  the 
items  for  which  we  have  definite  information,  the  knowledge  of 
the  fact  would  have  practical  as  well  as  scientific  value.  Nega- 
tive or  neutral  relationships  would  likewise  be  of  interest  and 
value. 

Through  the  utilization  of  the  Pearson  Coefficient  of  Cor- 
relation it  is  possible  to  give  a  definite  expression  to  these 
relationships.  The  application  of  and  results  derived  from  the 
use  of  the  Pearson  Coefficient  will  be  developed  and  treated  at 
length  in  Section  VIII. 

VII.     Causes  of  Variability 

There  remains  yet  the  open  and  legitimate  question  regard- 
ing the  probable  causes  of  the  wide  degree  of  variability  ex- 
hibited by  the  percentile  expenditures,  for  the  various  items 
enumerated.  It  is  a  veriest  of  commonplaces  to  repeat  that 
cities,  like  individuals,  would  be  expected  to  vary  greatly  in  the 
amount  and  character  of  their  expenditures.  These  variations 
have  always  been  accepted  as  a  concomitant  fact  of  the  differing 
needs  and  personalities  of  cities.  In  the  following  analysis,  an 
effort  has  been  made  to  indicate  and  bring  together  some  of 
those  causes  which  may  act  as  possible  influences  in  the  production 


42  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

of  variable  expenditures — influences,  too,  which  cannot  be  neg- 
lected in  any  consideration  of  public  education  in  cities. 

The  variability  of  percentile  expenditures,  which  has  been  ob- 
served, may  be  due  to  any  one  of  eight  general  causes,  or  to  com- 
binations of  these  causes.  These  will  now  be  taken  up  in  the 
order  of  their  supposed  ascending  influence  upon  the  variability. 

Influence  of  Population. — In  accordance  with  the  ordinary 
current  notion  regarding  municipal  affairs,  there  would  seem  to 
be  some  validity  in  the  contention  that  the  size  of  the  city  would 
be  a  predominating  influence  in  the  variability  of  such  factors  of 
municipal  expenditure  as  are  here  treated.  It  might  be  held, 
with  some  show  of  reason,  not  only  that  the  large  city  would 
necessarily  have  a  larger  relative  expenditure  for  maintenance 
and  operation  than  the  small  city,  but  also  that  the  number  of 
its  needs  would  be  greater;  and  as  the  number  of  its  avenues  of 
expenditure  increased,  the  resulting  tendency  would  be  a  diminu- 
tion of  the  proportion  of  the  public  revenues  available  for  each 
of  the  specified  needs. 

If  the  data  upon  which  this  work  is  constructed  are  fairly 
reliable,  a  distribution  of  the  percentile  expenditures  for  the 
various  items,  according  to  population  classes,  would  disclose 
the  degree  of  variability  obtaining  within  these  selected  groups  of 
cities.  These  distributions  have  been  made  for  three  items  and 
are  presented  in  Tables  7  (a),  7  (6)  and  7  (c).  From  these  tables, 
which  are  merely  examples  of  all  the  distributions,  it  is  very 
evident  that  no  positive  statement  of  the  cause  of  variability, 
as  depending  upon  population  alone,  can  be  made.  The  ten- 
dency toward  a  somewhat  smaller  range  of  variability,  exhibited 
by  the  groups  of  larger  cities  in  the  tables,  may  be  due  to  the 
smaller  size  of  their  groups,  as  compared  with  the  groups  of 
smaller  cities,  especially  Group  IV.  Very  large  cities  and  very 
small  cities  may  differ  a  great  deal  as  to  the  quality  and  range  of 
municipal  and  fiscal  activity.  In  the  main,  however,  the  essen- 
tial elements  entering  into  the  life  of  a  city  of  500,000  population 
differ  but  little  from  those  of  a  city  but  one  tenth  as  large.  This 
particular  point  is  an  important  one  to  keep  in  mind.  Especially 
in  educational  administration  is  there  a  tendency  to  attempt  to 
differentiate  sharply  between  the  conditions  of  the  large  and 
small  city.  In  certain  respects  only  is  such  a  differentiation 
justifiable.     The  general  conclusion  appears  to  be,  then,  that 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


43 


Tables  of  frequency. 

tion  according  to 

Group 

Per  cent. 

1900 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

1 

11 

1 

12 

0 

13 

1 

14 

1 

15 

2 

16 

1 

17 

3 

18 

1 

19 

1 

20 

1 

21 

2 

22 

0 

23 

2 

24 

0 

25 

1 

26 

0 

27 

0 

28 

0 

29 

0 

30 

0 

31 

1 

32 

33 

34 

35 

36 

37 

38 

39 

40 

41 

42 

43 

44 

45 

46 

47 

48 

Table  No.  7 

Percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  opera- 
population  groups.1     Fiscal  years  iqoo  and  igoi 


No.  of  cities,       19 
Median,  17.9 


1901 


19 
19.1 


(a) 

Schools 

II 


1900 


1901 


1 
1 
2 
1 
1 
0 
2 
1 
0 
0 
3 
2 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 

1 

19 
25.2 


III 


1900 


1901 


IV 


19 
23.5 


39 
24.0 


39 

26.0 


1900 
1 
1 
0 
0 

1 

0 
0 

1 

0 

1 
1 

4 
1 
1 
3 
3 
2 
4 
1 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
2 
1 
1 
1 
5 
4 
2 
1 
1 
2 
0 
0 
0 
0 
0 
1 


55 

26.9 


1901 
1 
0 
0 
0 
1 
0 
1 
0 
0 
0 

1 

2 
3 
3 

2 
4 
2 
1 
2 
3 
1 
5 
4 
2 
2 
1 
1 
2 
4 
2 
2 
1 
1 
1 
0 
0 
1 
1 
1 
0 

1 


59 
27.6 


'The  following  basis  for  the  selection  of  the  groups  of  cities  was  used  ■ 

Group      I. — All  cities  above  200,000  population. 

Group    II.— All  cities  from  100,000  to  200,000  population. 

Group  III.— All  cities  from  50,000  to  100,000  population 

Group  IV.— All  cities  from  30,000  to  50,000  population 


44 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


Table  No.  7  (Continued) 

Tables  of  frequency.     Percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion according  to  population  groups.     Fiscal  year  of  igoi 


(6) 

M 

Fire  Department. 

Police  Department, 

Courts,  Jails 

etc. 

Group     I 

II 

III 

IV 

Group 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

Per  cent. 

Per  cent. 

o 

1 

4 

1 

3 

0 

5 

3 

6 

4 

2 

2 

1 

6 

1 

3 

6 

11 

5 

2 

3 

7 

7 

0 

2 

4 

10 

6 

3 

1 

3 

9 

8 

1 

6 

6 

10 

7 

2 

6 

8 

7 

9 

1 

2 

5 

7 

8 

3 

5 

8 

12 

10 

2 

4 

2 

4 

9 

0 

4 

5 

8 

11 

3 

1 

7 

4 

10 

2 

3 

6 

4 

12 

1 

0 

3 

2 

11 

3 

3 

5 

13 

4 

0 

1 

1 

12 

1 

1 

2 

14 

1 

0 

2 

1 

13 

1 

0 

1 

15 

0 

1 

0 

2 

14 

1 

1 

16 

2 

0 

15 

1 

17 

1 

0 

No.  of 

— 

— 

— 

— 

18 

0 

1 

cities, 

19 

19 

40 

59 

19 

1 

Median, 

8.2 

8.2 

8.5 

8.5 

20 
21 
22 

0 
0 
1 

No.  of 

— 

— 

— 

— 

cities, 

19 

19 

40 

59 

Median,     13.1     8.8       9.55       8.1 


the  size  of  the  city  apparently  has  but  little  influence  upon  the 
variability  of  the  percentile  expenditures  for  certain  municipal 
activities. 

Influence  of  Geographical  Location. — At  the  best,  the  arbi- 
trary segregation  of  cities  into  geographical  groups  for  fiscal 
study  must  be  unsatisfactory.  The  difficulties  are  much  the 
same  as  with  the  division  into  population  groups.  Some  eastern 
cities  are  markedly  different  from  some  central  cities,  and  some 
central  cities  from  some  western  cities.  As  groups  of  cities, 
eastern  cities  might  not  differ  very  much  from  central  cities,  nor 
central  cities  from  western  cities.  The  group  of  southern  cities 
undoubtedly  does  reflect  certain  characteristics  which  have  a 
tendency  to  place  them  in  a  class  by  themselves.  This  is  notably 
the  case  as  regards  the  support  of  education,  where  the  situation 
is  complicated  by  the  traditional  individualism  and  the  difficult 
race  problem.  Table  8  gives  the  distribution  of  the  percentile 
school  expenditures  according  to  arbitrarily  made  geographical 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  45 

Table  No.  8 
Tables  of  frequency.     Percentile  expenditures  for  schools  according,  to  geo- 
graphic groups.     All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000 
population.     Fiscal  year  iqoi  1 

Percent.        Gr0UP     '  U  HI  ™  V 


g 

10 

II  1  0 


1 

1 
0 
0 
2  1 


0 
0 
0 
0 

16  6  5  0 

17  3  2  4ln 

18  3  2  1  0  V 

19  0  1  1  1  I 

tl  I  I  1  °  2 

21  6  3  0  2  ft 

22  0  3  1  I  ? 

0 
0 

1 
0 

1  1 


12  0  1 

13  1  ! 

14  1  1 

15  112 


21  6  3  0  2 

22  0  3  1  1 

23  2  2  0  3 
2f  2  5  0  0 

25  2  3  0  2 

26  2  0  0  2 

27  10  0 

28  0  1  0 

^  Oooio 

30  Olo  1 

1 

0 

1 

3  1 

0  0 

0  2 

0  1 


32  0  10  2 

33  0  2  0  T 

34  0  2ii 

35  0  0 

36  0  2 

37  0  1 

38  0  0 

39  1  1 

40  0 

41  0 

42  0 

43  0 

44  0 

45  1 

46  0 

47  0 

48  1 


Total,  27  39  18  34  i4 

Median,  21.3  24.3  16.7  oc  fi  on  1 


16-7  28.6  29.1 


■The  following  is  the  basis  for  the  selection  of  the  groups- 

Group      I.— Cities  of  Maine,  New  Hampshire,  Vermont,  Connecticut 

Massachusetts,  and  Rhode  Island 
Group    II.— Cities  of  New  York,  New  Jersey,  Pennsylvania,  Maryland 
rm,lfl  TTT      r.+.  Wef  yirSmi1a'  Delaware,  and  District  of  Columbia.' 
Group  III  —Cities  of  all  southern  states,  including  Texas 
Group  IV.— Cities  of  Ohio,   Indiana,   Illinois,   Michigan,'  Wisconsin 

Minnesota,  Iowa,  and  Missouri. 
Group     V.— Cities  of  all  states  west  of  Missouri  River. 


46  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

groups.  As  a  whole  the  table  is  a  demonstration  of  the  predica- 
tion of  the  small  influence  of  geographical  location  upon  the  ex- 
hibited variability  of  expenditures.  The  only  features  worth 
noticing  in  passing  are  (a),  the  limited  variability  for  the  cities 
of  the  New  England  states,  and  (b),  the  generally  low  percentile 
expenditures  in  the  southern  cities.  When  it  is  recalled  that 
these  latter  cities  are  credited  with  spending  for  education  the 
money  received  from  state  and  county,  which  in  a  number  of 
cases  is  all  that  is  spent,  this  low  percentage  is  significant. 

Influence  of  Municipal  Environment. — The  environment  of  a 
city  as  contrasted  with  its  mere  geographical  location  may  be  a 
factor  of  no  mean  influence  in  determining  the  quality  and  range 
of  its  expenditures.  A  thriving  seaport,  a  mining  community, 
or  a  large  railroad  centre,  might  require  a  much  larger  relative 
expenditure  for  police  protection  than  a  city  developed  as  a 
residence  district.  Northern  and  southern  cities  might  differ 
greatly  in  their  respective  expenditures  for  education  merely  on 
account  of  the  item  of  fuel  for  school  buildings.  A  city  built  in 
a  congested  manner  would  reasonably  require  a  greater  expendi- 
ture for  fire  protection  than  one  of  similar  size,  yet  of  much 
greater  area.  Proximity  to  natural  sources  of  power  (water  and 
natural  gas)  might  exert  a  decided  influence  in  many  items  of 
municipal  expenditure.  The  character  of  the  natural  drainage 
might  easily  serve  as  a  deciding  factor  in  the  expenditure  for 
health  protection  necessary  in  any  city.  These  and  many 
similar  influences  must  be  conceived  as  important  factors  in 
the  discussion  of  causal  relations  of  municipal  fiscal  policy. 

Influence  of  the  Mode  of  Classification  of  Public  Accounts  and 
of  Systems  of  Accounting. — The  modes  of  classification  of  public 
accounts  and  of  the  systems  of  accounting  pursued  by  the  fiscal 
authorities  of  different  cities  are  most  important  factors  in 
determining  the  possible  character  of  the  variability,  within  the 
group  of  cities,  of  the  expenditures  for  any  item.  They  are,  in  a 
sense,  secondary  factors  in  that  they  may  not  exert  directly  any 
important  influence  upon  the  amount  of  the  expenditures  of  a 
city,  although  it  is  possible  for  them  to  do  so.  They  are,  how- 
ever, the  medium  through  which  must  be  gained  whatever  exact 
knowledge  we  may  have  of  the  fiscal  operations  of  the  city. 
This  is  not  the  place  to  enter  upon  a  technical  discussion  of  the 
theory  underlying  a  rational  classification  of  municipal  revenues 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  47 

and  expenditures,1  or  to  lay  stress  upon  the  increased  adminis- 
trative efficiency  arising  from  some  uniform  system  of  municipal 
accounting.2  It  will  be  sufficient  to  indicate  in  a  concrete  man- 
ner the  possible  influence  of  the  lack  of  uniformity  in  classifica- 
tion and  accounting  upon  the  data  with  which  this  study  is 
concerned. 

The  absence  of  any  sharp  distinction  between  "expendi- 
tures for  construction  and  capital  outlay"  and  "expenditures 
for  maintenance  and  operation"  might  cause  chance  variations 
in  the  amounts  charged  for  the  maintenance  and  operation 
of  particular  departments.  Between  the  itemized  expenditures 
for  maintenance  and  operation  of  a  group  of  cities,  in  the 
absence  of  any  uniform  system,  a  certain  amount  of  varia- 
bility would  very  likely  be  caused.  Expenditures  made  in 
any  particular  direction  and  charged  to  a  particular  depart- 
ment in  one  city  might,  in  another  city,  be  charged  to  an 
entirely    different    department.     For   example,  some    one    ex-' 

1  Clow,  F.  R.,  A  Comparative  Study  for  the  Administration  of  City 
Finances  tn  the  United  States  with  Special  Reference  to  the  Budget,  Publi- 
cations of  American  Economic  Association,  Ser.  3,  vol.  2,  No.  4  (1901), 
pp.  667-914;  Gardner,  Henry  B.,  Municipal  Finance  tn  the  Twelfth 
Census,  Publications  of  American  Economic  Association,  New  Ser. 
(1899),  vol.  2,  pp.  418-465.  Both  of  these  studies  contain  interesting  and 
valuable  observations  upon  present  fiscal  practices  of  American  cities. 

Circular  of  the  Division  of  Wealth,  Debt,  and  Taxation  of  the  United 
States.  Instructions  to  Clerks  and  Special  Agents  for  the  Collection  of  Sta- 
tistics of  Municipal  Finance.     Bureau  of  the  Census  (July,  1904). 

2  The  most  influential  movement  in  this  particular  has  been  in- 
augurated by  the  National  Municipal  League,  through  the  appointment 
in  1 90 1  of  a  "Committee  on  Uniform  Municipal  Accounting  and  Statis- 
tics." Reports  of  this  committee,  made  by  its  chairman,  Dr.  Edward 
M.  Hartwell,  are  to  be  found  in  the  Proceedings  of  the  National  Municipal 
League  and  form  a  valuable  contribution  to  this  important  element  of 
municipal  efficiency  and  economy.  The  following  reports  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  other  papers  bearing  upon  the  topic,  are  especially  pertinent : 

Hartwell,  Edward  M.,  Chairman,  Report  of  the  Committee  on  Uniform 
Municipal  Accounting.  Proceedings  National  Municipal  League,  1903 
and  1904. 

Powers,  L.  G.,  Uniform  Accounting  in  its  Relation  to  Comparative 
Municipal  Statistics.  Proceedings  of  National  Municipal  League,  1904, 
pp.  230-241. 

Cleveland,  F.  A.,  What  Constitutes  Reasonable  Uniformity  in  Municipal 
Accounts  and  Reports.  Proceedings  National  Municipal  League,  1904, 
pp.  203-215. 


48  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

penditure  which  in  city  A  would  be  designated  as  an  expense 
for  police  service  might,  in  city  B,  be  charged  to  the  de- 
partment of  public  health,  and  in  city  C,  to  the  street  de- 
partment. The  use  of  service  transfers  1  and  the  duplication 
of  accounts  further  tend  to  shrink  or  expand  the  expendi- 
tures of  the  departments  in  different  cities.  This  tendency  to 
the  intermingling  of  classification  and  of  accounts  would  cer- 
tainly, in  the  case  of  the  definite  comparison  of  two  or  any 
small  number  of  cities,  render  the  statistics  derived  from  these 
classifications  and  accounts  invalid  for  any  exact  conclusions. 
However,  as  this  intermingling  is  purely  a  matter  of  chance,  and 
as  long  as  these  "errors"  of  classification  and  accounting  are 
not  of  a  constant  variety,  they  will,  in  the  large  group  of  cities 
under  consideration,  be  rendered  less  potent  in  affecting  the  re- 
sults. This  does  not,  of  course,  mean  that  absolute  or  approxi- 
mate uniformity  of  conducting  fiscal  operations  is  not  a  most 
desirable  and  necessary  aim  to  be  attained  for  the  purpose  of 
comparative  statistics.  A  chance  error  is  not  equal  to  no  error  at 
all;  neither  is  it  equivalent  to  a  constant  error. 

These  elements,  though,  are  not  the  only  ones  tending  to 
complicate  the  nature  of  our  data  and  to  influence  the  variability 
of  the  itemized  expenditures.  In  the  original  tables  the  ex- 
penditures for  various  municipal  undertakings,  such  as  water 
works,  gas  works,  electric  light  works,  docks  and  wharves,  mar- 
kets, cemeteries,  etc.,  are  included  in  the  total  expenditures  for 
maintenance  and  operation.2  Now  in  reality  these  enterprises 
generally  are  made  self-supporting,  or  nearly  so,  by  the  revenues 
derived  from  the  sale  of  the  commodities  produced  or  the  privi- 
leges granted;  hence,  to  include  the  expenditures  for  these  de- 
partments as  constituent  portions  of  the  expenditures  for  the 
maintenance  and  operation  of  the  municipality  is,  in  a  sense,  an 
unscientific  procedure.  Inasmuch  as  80  %  of  the  cities  have 
been  reported  as  having  expenditures  of  this  kind,  and  inasmuch 
as,  in  general,  the  amounts  concerned  are  small,  when  reduced 
to  per  cents,  of  the  gross  total,  their  influence  is  minimized. 

1  Service  transfers  are  transactions  between  two  departments,  offices, 
or  accounts  of  a  city  in  which  one  performs  some  service  for  another  and 
receives  pay  or  credit  therefor. 

2  Excluded  from  the  statistics  for  1902  and  1903.  See  Sections  X 
and  XI,  pp.  67  ff. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  49 

The  item  "interest  on  debt"  is  a  confusing  one.  In  most 
American  cities,  with  the  constant  increase  of  the  bonded  debt, 
it  is  becoming  of  more  importance  each  year.  The  amount  of 
this  element  causes  its  definite  localization  in  the  system  of 
classification  of  municipal  expenditures  to  be  of  prime  signifi- 
cance. Even  of  more  import  is  its  differentiation  into  amounts 
chargeable  to  the  various  municipal  activities. 

Economists  and  fiscal  experts  are  not  of  one  opinion  regarding 
its  exact  position  in  the  system  of  fiscal  classification.  However 
this  may  be,  in  this  study  the  whole  amount  of  interest  paid  on 
debt  has  been  treated  as  properly  belonging  to  the  ordinary  ex- 
penditures for  maintenance  and  operation. 

As  to  differentiation,  the  problem  assumes  a  more  difficult 
aspect.  A  bonded  debt  is  generally  incurred  for  a  definite  pur- 
pose— water,  streets,  schools,  etc.  The  interest  on  this  debt  then 
very  properly  belongs  as  a  charge  against  the  department  or 
purpose  for  which  the  debt  was  created.1  Systems  of  municipal 
accounting  have  not  as  yet  made  provisions  for  such  a  logical 
division  of  payments;  hence,  ordinarily  the  interest  payment  is 
regarded  as  a  separate  item.  For  the  most  part,  and  in  the 
majority  of  cities,  bonded  debt  has  been  incurred  through  three 
principal  branches  of  municipal  activity — streets,  water,  and 
schools.  In  the  present  study,  the  only  one  of  these  entering 
into  the  conclusions  is  schools.  To  have  included  the  interest  on 
the  school  debt  as  a  portion  of  the  expenditures  for  the  mainten- 
ance and  operation  of  schools  would  have  tended  to  increase  the 
amount  of  these  expenditures,  and  hence,  also,  probably  to  in- 
crease the  size  of  the  correlations  developed  between  the  ex- 
penditures for  education  and  expenditures  for  other  activities. 

Without  doubt,  some  of  the  variability  exhibited  by  the  ex- 
penditures for  education  in  the  different  cities  is  due  to  the  in- 
clusion or  exclusion  of  the  amount  of  interest  paid  upon  the 

1  It  is  pertinent  to  note  here  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  of  the 
National  Educational  Association  on  Uniform  Financial  Reports  (Pro- 
ceedings National  Educational  Association,  1897,  PP-  344~352)  excludes 
the  interest  on  debt  as  an  item  of  current  expenditure  entering  into  the 
cost  of  education.  The  argument  for  this  exclusion  (p.  348)  seems  to 
be  of  a  specious  nature,  economically  considered.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  schedules  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  prepared 
for  the  reporting  of  expenditures  for  public  education  in  cities,  include 
the  item  of  interest  on  debt  among  current  and  incidental  expenses. 


50  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education] 

bonded  debt  for  schools.  The  inclusion  would,  unless  a  careful 
discrimination  had  been  exercised  in  collecting  the  statistics, 
have  taken  place  most  likely  in  the  case  of  those  cities  whose 
public  school  corporations  possess  administrative  and  financial 
autonomy.  The  influence  of  this  inclusion  is  a  chance  one  and 
may  temporarily  be  disregarded. 

Properly  speaking,  the  entire  gross  amount  of  the  expendi- 
tures for  municipal  maintenance  and  operation  should  also  be 
differentiated  into  amounts  chargeable  to  certain  definite  or 
special  departments.  If  this  were  accomplished,  there  would  be 
no  "other"  or  "miscellaneous"  expenditures,  which  too  fre- 
quently merely  acts  as  a  reservoir  for  lassitude,  incompetence,  or 
carelessness  in  the  conduct  of  financial  operations.1  At  least, 
the  item  could  be  made  to  serve  as  a  restriction  to  over-classifica- 
tion and  not  act  in  the  way  it  does  now,  as  a  hindrance  to  the 
obtaining  of  a  clear  notion  of  the  actual  cost  of  maintaining  im- 
portant branches  of  the  municipal  governmental  machinery.2 
What  do  we  know,  for  example,  concerning  the  cost  of  maintain- 
ing the  various  general  administrative  departments  of  cities,  of 
the  cost  of  the  collection  of  taxes,  etc.  ?  In  the  present  case 
there  may  be,  in  some  instances  concealed  within  the  item  of 
"other"  expenditures,  amounts  properly  belonging  to  definite 
departments.  Any  errors  arising  from  such  wrong  inclusion  are 
unavoidable ;  but  as  they  are  of  a  purely  chance  nature  their  in- 
fluence upon  the  conclusions  regarding  the  entire  group  will 
probably  not  be  large. 

Influence  of  State  Subsidies  for  Education. — That  the  amount 
of  money  received  by  cities  from  other  jurisdictions — state  or 
county — for  the  support  of  specified  activities  may  exercise 
some  influence  upon  the  variability  of  expenditures  in  different 
cities  has,  in  the  past,  been  accepted  without  question.  The 
exact  character  of  this  influence,  whether  positive,  negative,  or 
neutral,  has  not  been  determined  in  any  conclusive  manner.  As 
this  subsidizing  is  most  general  in  the  case  of  education,  the 
extent  of  this  influence  may  be  considered  of  some  moment  in 

1  See  Table  9,  in  which  are  distributed  the  cities  according  to  the 
percentile  amount  of  undifferentiated  expenditures. 

3  In  the  statistics  for  1902  and  1903,  subjected  to  study  in  Sections 
X.  and  XL,  the  item  for  "  miscellaneous  "  and  "  other  expenditures  "  has 
been  practically  eliminated. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  51 

this  investigation.  To  what  degree  is  this  plan  of  granting  sub- 
sidies conducive  to  a  corresponding  proportional  increase  in  the 
expenditure  of  funds  derived  from  purely  local  sources  ? 

Table  No.  9 

Tables  of  frequency.     Unclassified  percentile  expenditures  for  maintenance 

and  operation.     All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000 

population.     Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 

Per  cent  1900  1901 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 
10 
11 
12 
13 
14 
15 
16 
17 
IS 
19 
20 
21 
22 
23 
24 
25 
26 
27 
28 
29 
30 
31 
32 
33 
34 
35 

one  case  at  48 


Unfortunately,  no  reliable  data  exists  relative  to  the  ratio  of 
state  and  local  support  of  education  in  cities.1     Neither  is  such 

1  What  might  be  comprehensive  and  reliable  sources  of  such  data, 
viz.,  the  reports  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education,  are 
most  untrustworthy  in  this  respect. 


1 

1 

2 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

0 

0 

1 

6 

8 

6 

5 

10 

5 

12 

15 

18 

13 

11 

8 

10 

5 

9 

5 

5 

8 

4 

5 

11 

7 

9 

6 

5 

7 

1 

8 

0 

1 

1 

2 

5 

2 

3 

3 

3 

0 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1 

0 

5 

0 

1 

0 

1 

1 

2 

0 

0 

0 

1        one  case  at  43             9 
one  case  at  44 

Total,  133 

137 

52  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

information  readily  obtainable  for  any  large  number  of  cities. 
The  whole  question  can  best  be  solved  by  eliminating  from  the 
present  consideration  the  possible  positive  or  negative  effect  of 
the  state  subsidy.  Consequently,  all  the  expenditures  for  educa- 
tion within  any  city,  irrespective  of  the  sources  of  the  revenues 
from  which  such  expenditures  are  made,  have  been  treated  on 
the  same  plane.  For  in  spite  of  other  influences,  which  may  be 
exercised  by  the  state  subsidy,  from  a  purely  fiscal  standpoint, 
every  city  soon  begins  to  regard  the  income  from  state  or  county 
in  the  same  light  as  that  derived  from  local  sources.  If  the 
state  subsidy  be  too  large  it  may  decrease  the  local  feeling  of 
financial  responsibility  to  a  point  far  below  that  necessary  for  the 
complete  social  efficiency  of  public  education.  If  the  state  sub- 
sidy be  inappreciable,  or  nothing  at  all,  local  responsibility  may 
be  stimulated  to  a  very  high  degree.  At  least,  such  is  the  work- 
ing principle  of  the  current  state  subsidies.  At  any  rate,  from 
a  statistical  point  of  view,  the  raising  of  the  question  here  points 
to  an  unsolved  problem  in  educational  administration.  The 
present  day  practices  founded  on  the  principle  of  the  equaliza- 
tion of  educational  opportunity  between  the  communities  within 
any  state  may  in  reality  be  unjust  and  operate  in  a  direction  con- 
trary to  that  anticipated.1 

Influence  of  Distribution  of  Functions. — The  form  in  which 
the  several  governmental  functions  are  distributed  and  con- 
trolled will  act  as  an  important  influence  upon  the  variability  of 
expenditures.  Properly  to  describe  this  form  necessitates  replies 
to  three  questions. 

(a)  How  far  does  the  state,  or  county,  or  other  civic  au- 
thority, assume  direct  responsibility  for  the  support  of  specific 
functions?  For  example,  courts,  care  of  defective,  delinquent, 
and  criminal  classes,  public  education,  parks,  water  supply?  In 
some  states,  the  state  or  county  bears  all  or  part  of  the  expense 
of  the  support  of  such  activities  in  the  cities;  in  others,  the 
cities  themselves  must  directly  assume  these  expenditures. 

(b)  How  far  do  the  citizens  of  any  community,  in  an  indi- 

1  An  investigation  pointing  to  the  truth  of  this  statement  has  been 
conducted  by  Professor  Ellwood  P.  Cubberley,  of  Leland  Stanford  Junior 
University.  See  General  taxation  for  education  and  the  apportionment  of 
school  funds.  Teachers  College,  Columbia  University,  Contributions  to 
Education,  No.  2. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  53 

vidual  capacity,  pay  for  the  performance  of  functions  which 
would  be  assumed  by  the  municipal  government  in  another 
locality?  For  example,  removal  of  garbage,  sprinkling  and 
lighting  of  streets,  public  education,  public  libraries  and  parks, 
police  service,  etc.? 

(c)  How  far  have  the  cities  in  question  been  granted  the 
authority  or  assumed  the  responsibility  for  the  performance  of 
those  functions  with  which  we  are  concerned  ?  This  of  course  is 
the  result  of  the  process  of  subtracting  from  those  activities, 
which  might  be  considered  as  falling  within  the  scope  of  municipal 
control,  those  whose  support  is  assumed  by  the  state  or  retained 
by  the  private  individual. 

In  any  one  to  one  comparisons  of  the  expenditures  of  cities, 
the  differentiation  of  function  as  between  the  municipality  and 
other  civil  jurisdictions  on  the  one  hand,  and  between  the  mu- 
nicipality and  private  assumption  on  the  other,  must  receive 
due  consideration  in  the  derivation  of  any  valid  conclusions. 

There  is  also  a  necessity  in  such  a  study  as  this  to  give  weight 
to  the  influence  of  this  distribution  of  function.  Too  much  im- 
portance must  not  however  be  attached  to  this  influence.  What 
is  being  attempted  here  is  some  view  of  the  character  and  rela- 
tionships of  municipal  fiscal  activity.  In  just  how  far  such 
character  and  relationships  reflect  administrative  and  civic 
efficiency  is  a  somewhat  different  problem. 

Influence  of  Economic  Wealth  of  Municipalities  } — The  wealth 
of  any  city  may  rightfully  be  supposed  to  be  the  largest  factor  in 
determining  the  amount  of  money  devoted  to  public  purposes. 
Other  things  being  equal,  the  rich  city  has  a  proportionately 
greater  potential  source  of  income  for  public  purposes  than  the 
poorer  city,  and  thereby  is  enabled  to  extend  and  multiply  its 
activities  in  a  manner  best  calculated  to  satisfy  its  local  needs. 
It  is  able  to  do  much  with  comparative  ease,  while  the  poor  city 
must  make  many  sacrifices  to  accomplish  even  less.  As  has  been 
indicated  in  an  earlier  section,  the  influence  of  the  wealth  of  the 
community  has  been  partially  eliminated  owing  to  the  reduction 
to  a  percentile  basis  of  the  factors  of  determination.     We  are 

1  See  Harris,  W.  T.,  Some  of  the  Conditions  which  Cause  Variation  in 
the  Rate  of  School  Expenditures  in  Different  Localities,  Proc.  Dept.  of 
Superintendence,  National  Edticational  Association,  1905,  pp.  45-63,  for 
some  of  the  broader  aspects  of  this  particular  topic. 


54  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

measuring  according  to  a  relative  rather  than  an  absolute  stand- 
ard. 

Nevertheless,  this  element  of  superior  resources  is  one  which 
should  enter  into  any  complete  discussion  of  the  extent  of  the 
development  of  the  various  municipal  activities.  In  a  later  sec- 
tion an  attempt  has  been  made  to  trace  some  connection  between 
educational  expenditures  and  the  taxable  wealth  of  the  com- 
munity. 

Influence  of  Methods  of  Revenue  and  Expenditure  Adminis- 
tration.— The  influence  of  the  revenue  and  expenditure  methods 
upon  the  variability  of  expenditures  is  a  complex  one.  The 
modes  of  taxation,  the  limitation  by  the  states  of  the  rate  of 
taxation  for  general  or  special  purposes,  the  isolation  of  special 
forms  of  revenue  for  special  purposes  (excise  tax  for  schools), 
the  exercise  of  more  than  one  local  tax  authority  over  the  same 
territorial  jurisdiction  (as  is  frequently  the  case  with  local  school 
revenues) ,  are  some  of  the  causes  on  the  side  of  revenue  likely  to 
produce  a  wide  variation  in  the  expenditures  for  any  particular 
item.  The  control  of  expenditures,  whether  by  some  centralized 
body  or  by  a  series  of  more  or  less  independent  boards  having 
fiscal  authority  over  certain  departments,  presents  another  class 
of  variability  producing  influences  which  are  intimately  bound 
up  with  the  prevailing  political  and  administrative  systems. 

Influence  of  Municipal  Personality  and  Ideals. — The  pre- 
viously enumerated  influences  likely  to  produce,  either  acting 
singly  or  in  combination,  the  observed  variation  in  the  percent- 
age of  municipal  expenditures  devoted  to  definite  purposes  are, 
with  the  possible  exception  of  the  secondarily  acting  influence 
of  methods  of  accounting,  those  largely  without  the  direct  and 
immediate  control  of  cities  themselves.  A  city  does  not  deter- 
mine its  location;,  its  population  and  its  wealth  expand  or 
shrink  from  forces  rarely  subject  to  definite  direction;  the  author- 
ity of  the  state,  through  administrative  control  or  limitation  of 
fiscal  activity,  is  exercised  in  an  arbitrary  manner.  Is  there  not 
some  sphere  in  which  the  city  acts  in  a  self-determining  manner 
as  regards  the  particular  aspects  of  its  activity  here  being  dis- 
cussed? Lacking  somewhat  perhaps  in  definiteness,  it  is  put 
forth  at  this  point  as  a  predication,  that  the  greatest  influences 
upon  the  variability  are  the  intangible  personality  and  ideals  of 
the  city.     In  these  two  words  may  be  concentrated  the  probable 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  55 

effects  of  all  of  the  other  influences.  It  cannot  be  maintained 
that,  as  is  the  location,  population,  kind  of  state  supervision, 
method  of  taxation,  or  manner  of  administrative  direction,  so  is 
the  city.  Neither,  perhaps,  could  the  contention  be  upheld 
that,  as  a  city  spends  its  money,  so  is  the  city.  It  might  be  said 
with  greater  chance  of  ready  acceptance,  that,  as  are  the  citizens 
so  is  the  city.  However,  the  happiness,  contentment,  civic 
capacity,  and  ethical  standards  of  a  community  are  not  capable 
of  measurement,  beyond  that  by  the  use  of  varying  subjective 
standards.  It  may  be  possible,  though,  to  obtain,  through  such 
an  objective  standard  as  the  character  of  its  expenditures,  some 
index  of  the  personality  and  ideals  of  its  people. 

A  municipality  is  seldom  economical  in  the  expenditure  of 
its  revenues.  It  is  far  more  often  either  parsimonious  or  ex- 
travagant. The  recognition  of  the  principle  of  expediency  is 
much  more  frequent  than  that  of  real  worth,  or  of  final  utility. 
The  cost  of  public  service  is  doubled  because  of  the  price  often 
paid  to  mediocrity,  or  on  account  of  the  tribute  levied  under  a 
system  of  political  feudalism.  And  this  price  is  paid  by  reason 
of  civic  inertia  and  impotence,  or  because  the  standards  of 
good  service  are  not  known.  The  social  income  is  spent  ac- 
cording to  standards  that  were  or  are,  and  not  according  to 
standards  that  ought  to  be.  A  city  is  not  a  machine,  and  any 
description  of  the  forces  that  make  for  progress  or  otherwise 
must  keep  in  mind  that  human  beings  make  up,  and  human 
minds  direct,  municipal  affairs  and  set  up  civic  standards.  The 
final  aim  of  the  study  will  be  to  gain  some  insight  into  the  per- 
sonality and  ideals  of  the  American  municipality  as  these  are 
revealed  to  us  through  some  of  the  aspects  and  relationships 
of  its  fiscal  activity.  For  it  is  here  perhaps  that  the  character 
of  this  personality  and  of  these  ideals  is  best  exhibited. 

Conclusion. — The  phenomenon  of  variability  is  a  constant 
one,  if  cities  are  subject  to  the  law  that  governs  all  other  social 
institutions.  This  variability  may  be  due,  as  we  have  seen,  to  a 
large  number  of  causes.1  Before  attempting  to  analyze  the  con- 
nection which  may  exist  between  the  causes  and  the  variabilities, 
some  of  the  more  important  relationships  of  these  variabilities 
will  be  pointed  out. 

»  There  may  be  other  minor  causes  leading  to  this  variability.  I 
have  stated  what  seem  to  me  to  be  the  ones  most  likely  to  be  influential. 


56  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

VIII.     Relationships  between  Items  of  Expenditure 

Implications  of  the  Variability. — In  the  previous  discussion  * 
concerning  variability,  the  question  was  raised  as  to  the  probable 
relationships  which  might  exist  between  the  various  items  of 
expenditure.  Do  the  cities  that  spend  a  larger  proportion  than 
is  ordinary  of  their  total  expenditures  for  the  maintenance  and 
operation  of  public  schools  also  spend  a  larger  proportion  than 
is  ordinary  for  libraries,  for  street  lighting,  for  police  service, 
for  protection  of  health,  etc.?  Or  does  a  proportional  large 
expenditure  for  education  mean  that  this  is  accomplished  at 
a  sacrifice  of  the  support  of  such  other  activities?  In  other 
words,  does  proportional  generous  support  of  education  con- 
vey any  information  concerning  the  character  of  the  munici- 
pality regarded  as  a  whole  ?  If  the  existence  of  certain  relation- 
ships can  be  demonstrated,  then  in  general,  a  new  basis  of 
municipal  worth  and  efficiency  might  be  established. 

The  Pearson  Coefficient  of  Correlation. — It  will  be  recalled  that 
a  brief  mention  was  made  in  the  preceding  section  2  of  the  use  of 
the  Pearson  Coefficient  of  Correlation  as  a  method  of  measure- 
ment for  determining  the  exact  nature  of  these  relationships. 
Divested  of  its  mathematical  terminology  this  coefficient  is  a 
measure  of  the  general  relation  of  a  deviation  of  the  amount  of 
one  item  of  expenditure  in  a  city  from  the  typical  amount  of  that 
item  (i.  e.,  median,  mode,  or  average),  to  the  deviation  exhibited 
by  the  same  city  of  the  amount  of  some  other  item  of  expenditure. 
A  mere  comparison  of  the  variabilities  of  two  items  of  expendi- 
ture within  a  group  of  cities  might  enable  one  to  infer  the  exist- 
ence of  a  relationship,  especially  if  the  relationship  were  a  strong 
one  and  the  tables  did  not  contain  so  many  cases  as  to  preclude 
ready  inspection  and  comparison.  No  amount  of  such  inspec- 
tion and  one  to  one  comparison,  as  has  been  suggested,  would 
enable  one  to  give  a  definite  value  to  the  relationship. 

The  Pearson  Coefficient 3  is  the  agency  by  which  we  attain 

'  Pp.  40-41.  2  P-  41 

3  The  following  references  to  the  Pearson  Coefficient  of  Correlation  are 
given:  Pearson,  Karl,  Grammar  of  Science,  chapter  on  Correlation; 
Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Educational  Psychology,  pp.  26  ff. ;  Thorndike,  E.  L., 
Theory  of  Mental  and  Social  Measurements,  pp.  121  ff.;  Spearman,  C, 
The  Proof  and  Measurement  of  Association  between  Two  Things,  Ameri- 
can Journal  of  Psychology,  XV.,  1904,  pp.  72-101. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  57 

this  expression  of  exactness.  This  Coefficient  of  Correlation  is  a 
figure  so  calculated  from  individual  records  as  to  give  the  degree 
of  relationship  between  two  items  which  will  best  account  for  all 
the  separate  cases  in  the  group.  In  other  words,  it  expresses  the 
degree  of  relationship  from  which  the  actual  cases  might  have 
arisen  with  least  improbability.  It  has  possible  values  from 
+ 100  %,  through  zero,  to  —  100  %.  That  is  to  say,  in  the  present 
situation,  a  coefficient  of  correlation  of  100%  between  any  two 
items  of  expenditure,  such  as  schools  and  street  lighting,  would 
posit  that  the  city  which  spent  the  largest  proportion  of  its  total 
expenditures  for  maintenance  and  operation  of  education,  also 
spent  the  largest  proportion  for  street  lighting;  and  that,  if  the 
cities  were  ranked  in  order  according  to  the  proportion  spent  for 
education,  and  then  in  the  order  according  to  the  proportion 
spent  for  street  lighting,  the  two  rankings  would  be  identical; 
that  the  position  of  any  city  with  reference  to  the  others  in  one 
item  of  expenditure  would  be  the  same  for  the  other  item  (both 
being  reduced  to  terms  of  the  variabilities  of  the  percentile  ex- 
penditures as  units  to  allow  comparison).  On  the  contrary, 
a  coefficient  of  —  100  per  cent,  between  schools  and  street  light- 
ing would  mean  that  the  city  which  spent  the  largest  propor- 
tion for  education  spent  the  lowest  proportion  for  street 
lighting;  that  the  best  city  in  our  percentile  ranking  in  educa- 
tion would  be  the  lowest  in  the  percentile  ranking  for  street 
lighting.  A  coefficient  of  +  62  %  would  mean  that  (comparison 
being  rendered  fair  here,  as  always,  by  reduction  to  the  vari- 
abilities as  units)  any  given  station  for  one  item  would,  on  the 
whole,  imply  62  hundredths  of  that  station  for  the  other.  A 
coefficient  of  —  62  %  would,  of  course,  mean  that  any  position 
above  the  central  tendency  for  one  item  would,  on  the  whole, 
mean  a  position  below  the  central  tendency  for  the  other  item 
equal  to  62  hundredths  of  the  amount  the  first  was  above  the 
central  tendency.1 

Existing  Relationships. — Table  10  presents  the  coefficients  of 
correlation  between  certain  items  as  they  have  been  found  to 
exist  by  use  of  the  Pearson  formula.  The  three  columns  give 
the  amount  of  the  coefficients  for  the  two  different  years,  and 
those  derived  from  the  average  of  these  two  years. 

1  This  explanation  has  been  adapted  largely  from  Thorndike's  Edu- 
cational Psychology,  p.  26. 


58 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


Table  No.   10 

Table  of  Pearson  coefficients  of  correlation.    Percentile  expenditures  for  main- 
tenance and  operation  for  the  fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi.     All  cities 
in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population 


1900 


1901 


Average  of 

1900  and 

1901 


Schools  with — 

Police  Department 

Police  Department,  Courts,  etc 

Fire  Department 

Health 

Libraries  and  Museums 

Parks 

Street  Lighting 

Interest  on  Debt 

Other  Expenditures 

Street  Lighting  Department  with 
Police  Department 

Fire  Department  with 
Police  Department,  Courts,  etc 


+  .0256 

-  . 0459 
+  .203 

-  . 0243 
+  .279 
+  .031 
+  .354 


-.149 
-.15 
+  .065 
-.205 
+  .315 
+  .065 
+  .336 


-.069 
-.0679 
+  .0969 
-.0145 
+  .293 
+  .0156 
+  .344 
-.482 
-.288 

+ . 0685 
+  .139 


These  particular  items  of  expenditure  were  selected  from  the 
other  items  because  there  is,  in  all  probability,  less  likelihood  of 
variation  and  inequalities  arising  with  them  from  confusion  of 
accounts.  While  this  element  is  not  an  entirely  negligible  quan- 
tity and  perhaps  never  will  be  as  long  as  there  are  differences  in 
men  and  cities,  it  is  assumed  that  the  data  collected  and  pre- 
sented in  our  original  tables  reflect  the  approximately  true  na- 
ture of  these  particular  expenditures  in  American  cities. 

Significance  of  Relationships. — Remembering  the  possibility 
of  a  Pearson  coefficient  varying  in  value  from  plus  1.00  through 
zero  to  minus  1.00,  the  small  size  of  the  coefficients  in  Table  10  * 
may  appear  to  be  without  significance.  That  is,  a  coefficient  of 
—  .067  for  police  department,  courts,  jails,  etc.,  may  be  without 
any  readily  ascertained  meaning.  It  must,  however,  be  kept  in 
mind  that  a  large  percentile  expenditure  in  any  one  direction 
leaves  a  correspondingly  less  amount  to  be  distributed  among 
the  other  activities.  Hence,  the  plus  correlations  between 
schools  and  the   four  items  indicated  in  Table    10,  viz.,  fire, 


1  Throughout  this  explanation  and  interpretation  the  coefficients 
referred  to  are  always  the  average  coefficients  for  the  two  years'  ex- 
penditures.    The  average  figure  is  self-evidently  a  more  reliable  one. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  59 

libraries  and  museums,  parks  and  street  lighting,  are  demonstra- 
tions of  certain  tendencies  of  a  significant  nature.  They  indi- 
cate that  there  are  some  activities  which  bear  a  definite  fiscal 
relation  to  each  other,  and  these  relationships  undoubtedly  re- 
flect certain  more  or  less  constant  characteristics  of  municipal 
expenditures. 

The  large  positive  correlation  between  the  support  accorded 
to  public  education  and  that  accorded  to  libraries  is  what  might 
be  inferred.  A  generous  attitude  toward  each  is  largely  the  re- 
sult of  the  existence  of  the  same  cultural  forces  operative  in 
any  community  producing  certain  municipal  ideals. 

In  a  like  manner,  the  positive  coefficient  of  correlation  be- 
tween expenditures  for  schools  and  those  for  street  lighting  is 
indicative  of  similar  forces  at  work.  It  is  here  recognized  that 
the  cost  of  street  lighting  may  bear  no  direct  proportional  rela- 
tion to  the  amount  of  lighting  done,  inasmuch  as  the  cost  is 
subject  to  a  variety  of  influences,  such  as  compactness  of  the 
community,  wise  or  unwise  contracts  with  private  lighting  com- 
panies, the  proximity  of  the  city  to  sources  of  natural  power,  etc. 
Having  in  mind  these  restrictions,  it  is  still  permissible  to  con- 
clude that,  in  general,  the  city  which  is  willing  and  able  to  give 
more  than  the  ordinary  (median)  percentage  of  its  total  expen- 
ditures for  public  education,  is  also  willing  to  give  considerably 
more  than  the  median  amount  to  the  lighting  of  its  streets. 

The  large  minus  correlation  between  schools  and  interest 
on  debt  is  significant  and  worthy  of  special  attention  by  those 
who  see  danger  in  the  marked  tendency  of  American  cities  to 
increase  their  bonded  obligations  to  the  legal  maximum. 

The  remaining  correlations  with  schools,  while  small,  are  in- 
dicative of  relations  of  an  interesting  nature.  Apparently  there 
is  an  inclination  of  cities  to  appropriate  somewhat  less  than  the 
normal  proportion  of  their  expenditures  for  police  and  health 
protection  and  slightly  more  than  the  normal  for  fire  protection 
and  parks  as  their  educational  expenditures  rise  above  the  normal 
percentile  amount. 

To  be  of  the  most  value,  the  expenditures  for  each  municipal 
department  should  be  correlated  with  those  for  every  other 
department.  Especially  should  the  relations  between  school 
expenditures  and  the  expenditures  for  all  other  chief  municipal 
departments  be  evaluated.     The    relation   which   the    cost   of 


60  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

FIG.  11. 


8.14 


4.0  3 


1.68 


15.27 


26.79 


30.87 


35.66 


.80 


40.88 


Explanation  of  Figure  u. — The  diagram  relates  to  the 
average  percentile  expenditures  for  1900  and  1901,  for  the  items 
indicated,  in  the  55  cities  possessing  a  population  of  30,000  to 
50,000,  according  to  the  census  of  1900.  The  numbers  on  the 
diagram  were  derived  as  follows:  The  55  cities  were  arranged 
in  the  order  of  their  ascending  percentile  expenditures  for  public 
schools.  Thus  arranged,  they  were  then  divided  into  six 
groups,  each  of  the  first  five  groups  having  ten  cities,  and  the 
sixth  group  having  five  cities.  The  averages  of  the  percentile 
expenditure  for  two  years  for  each  of  the  indicated  items  were 
then  calculated,  and  the  following  results  obtained. 

Average  Percentile  Expenditures  for 


Public 

Fire 

Street 

Health 

Schools 

Department 

Lighting 

Department 

■oup  1 

15.27 

8.14 

4.02  (9)' 

1.63  (7)' 

"       2 

21.62 

7.20 

5.63  (9)' 

1.87 

"       3 

25.79 

7.76 

5.04 

1.15 

"        4 

30.87 

9.87 

6.39 

1.01 

"       5 

35.66 

8.50 

7.67 

1.32 

6 

40.89 

8.14 

6.85 

.80 

Hence,  if  the  expenditures  for  public  schools  be  represented, 
according  to  scale,  on  a  horizontal  line,  the  general  relation  of 
the  expenditures  for  each  of  the  other  items  may  be  shown  by 
a  broken  line,  drawn  to  a  scale,  in  accordance  with  the  direction 
of  the  deviation  of  expenditures  for  the  specified  group  of  cities. 

•  Figures  in  parentheses  indicate  number  of  cities  for  which  data  were 
available. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  61 

general  administration  bears  to  that  of  educational  administra- 
tion and  supervision;  the  relation  of  the  cost  of  the  various 
elements  that  enter  into  the  maintenance  of  streets ;  these  and 
many  other  salient  and  evident  interdependencies  must  be  deter- 
mined before  we  shall  be  able  to  reach  any  absolute  conclusions 
regarding  the  proportion  of  the  social  income  which  should  be 
devoted  to  this  or  that  essential  purpose.  Once  determined, 
these  relations  may  afford  certain  standards  which  would  remove 
the  more  important  items  of  expenditure  at  least  from  the  realm 
of  mere  expediency.  The  complete  set  of  these  correlations 
would  give  a  clear  insight  into  the  fiscal  and  perhaps  the  socio- 
logical characteristics  of  the  American  city.  Until  we  have, 
however,  better  means  by  which  to  differentiate  more  sharply 
between  the  various  items  of  expenditure,  such  work  will  be 
impossible;  yet  its  accomplishment  is  a  very  necessary  comple- 
ment to  that  of  establishing  the  very  much  needed  standards 
for  municipal  and  educational  fiscal  policies. 

In  Figure  No.  n  (p.  60)  an  attempt  has  been  made  to  give 
a  diagrammatic  representation  of  the  character  of  the  relation- 
ships expressed  by  the  Pearson  coefficients. 

IX.     Variability    and    Correlation    of    Per    Capita    Ex- 
penditures 

It  has  been  thought  both  advisable  and  necessary  for  any 
adequate  treatment  of  the  present  phase  of  the  fiscal  position 
of  education  in  cities  to  develop  and  point  out  relationships  upon 
other  than  the  basis  of  percentile  expenditures. 

Data. — For  the  following  portion  of  the  study  the  same 
general  data  were  utilized  as  in  the  preceding  sections.  The 
tables  of  per  capita  expenditures  1  for  the  maintenance  and 
operation  of  certain  municipal  departments  as  published  in  the 
Bulletins  of  the  Department  of  Labor  for  1901  and  1902  were 
selected  as  the  chief  basis. 

Variability  of  Per  Capita  Expenditures. — An  inspection  of 

1  These  tables  were  derived  by  dividing  the  expenditures  for  the 
various  items  by  the  figure  representing  the  population :  according  to  the 
official  census  of  1900,  for  the  expenditures  given  for  1900,  and  according 
to  the  estimated  population  of  January  1,  1902,  for  those  of  1901.  For 
a  criticism  of  this  last  procedure,  see  Proceedings  of  National  Municipal 
League,   1904,  p.   253. 


62  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Tables  n  and  12  discloses  the  same  wide  variability  in  the  per 
capita  expenditures  for  the  various  items  as  was  pointed  out  in 
the  case  of  the  percentile  expenditures.  The  evidence  afforded 
by  this  range  of  per  capita  variabilities  is  here  adduced  to  lend 
force  to  the  conclusions  arrived  at  from  the  study  of  the  vari- 
abilities of  the  percentile  expenditures. 

The  wide  range  of  the  total  per  capita  expenditures  as  dis- 
played by  Table  1 1  (e)  is  an  index  of  the  extreme  variability  of 
municipal  fiscal  operations.  That  this  variability  is  not  pro- 
duced alone  by  the  commonly  supposed  increased  cost  of  main- 
tenance and  operation  as  the  cities  increase  in  population  and 
extent  is  confirmed  by  the  evidence  presented  in  Table  12. 

Table  No.   11 
Tables  of  frequency.     Per  capita  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion.    All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population. 
Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 

(a)  (b) 

Police  Department,  Police  Courts,  Jails,  Fire  Department. 

Workhouses,  Reformatories,  etc. 

Expenditure.         Frequency.     Frequency.  Expenditure.       Frequency.     Frequency. 

1901  1900  1901 

2  $    .20  1  1 

4  .30  3  3 

5  .40  5  4 

8  .50  4  5 

12  .60  8  11 

13  .70  11  11 
15  .80  16  13 
20  .90  18  19 

9  1.00  10  13 
10  1.10  12  15 

7  1.20  11  12 

5  1.30  10  8 

4  1.40  6  6 

2  1.50  6  7 

3  1.60  1  2 
3  1.70  3  0 

3  1.80  3  4 
1         1.90        3        1 

4  2.00  0  0 
1  2.10  1  0 
0         2.20  1 

0  

0  Total,  132       136 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

1 

2 

1 


136 


1900 

.30 

0 

.40 

4 

.50 

6 

.60 

6 

.70 

15 

.80 

11 

.90 

21 

1.00 

8 

1.10 

10 

1.20 

9 

1.30 

8 

1.40 

5 

1.50 

4 

1.60 

5 

1.70 

1 

1.80 

3 

1.90 

3 

2.00 

2 

2.10 

4 

2.20 

1 

2.30 

1 

2.40 

0 

2.50 

0 

2.60 

1 

2.70 

0 

2.80 

0 

2.90 

3 

3.00 

0 

3.10 

0 

3.20 

0 

3.30 

0 

3.40 

0 

3.50 

1 

Total, 

132 

Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 
Table  No.   11  (Continued) 


63 


Tables  of  frequency.     Per  capita  expenditures  for  maintenance  and  opera- 
tion.    All  cities  in  the  United  States  above  jo,ooo  population. 
Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 


to 

W) 

to 

Schools. 

Street  Lighting. 

Total. 

Expenditure. 

Frequency. 

Expenditure.      Frequency. 

Expenditure. 

Frequency. 

1900 

1901 

1900         1901 

1900 

1901 

$    .80 

1 

0 

$ 

.10               2            0 

$  4 

1 

1 

1.00 

1 

5 

.20             6           5 

5 

3 

2 

1.20 

3 

2 

.30             3           4 

6 

4 

4 

1.40 

3 

5 

.40            14          21 

7 

6 

10 

1.60 

1 

1 

.50           17         15 

8 

9 

15 

1.80 

5 

4 

.60           21          19 

9 

15 

10 

2.00 

8 

9 

. 70           20         26 

10 

13 

22 

2.20 

6 

9 

.80           13         10 

11 

14 

3 

2.40 

11 

10 

.90           13         12 

12 

10 

12 

2.60 

17 

8 

1 

.00             6           8 

13 

7 

13 

2.80 

9 

16 

1 

.10             4           2 

14 

8 

10 

3.00 

9 

9 

1 

.20             2           0 

15 

9 

8 

3.20 

9 

14 

1 

.30             1            1 

16 

8 

10 

3.40 

14 

14 

1 

.40             0           1 

17 

5 

5 

3.60 

15 

4 

1 

.50             1            1 

18 

6 

3 

3.80 

2 

5 

1 

.60             0           1 

19 

3 

0 

4.00 

6 

6 

1 

.70             2           0 

20 

2 

0 

4.20 

2 

2 



21 

3 

4 

4.40 

3 

3 

Total,  125       126 

22 

1 

1 

4.60 

2 

4 

23 

1 

4.80 

0 

1 

24 

0 

5.00 

1 

0 

25 

0 

5.20 

2 

1 

26 

0 

5.40 

0 

4 

27 

0 

5.60 

1 

28 

0 

5.80 

0 

29 

0 

6.00 

1 

30 

1 





31 

2 

Total, 

132 

136 

32 
33 
34 
35 

0 
0 
0 

1 

Total,  132       136 

The  probable  causes  of  the  variability  of  the  municipal  ex- 
penditures, discussed  at  length  in  Section  VII,  will  be  recalled 
here.  Whatever  may  be  the  extent  of  the  influence  of  any,  or 
all,  of  the  causes,  it  cannot  be  assumed  that  the  municipality 
spending  $4  per  year  in  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  its 
various  departments  represents  the  degree  of  municipal  efficiency 
of  one  devoting  $36  for  these  purposes;  nor  that  municipal 
economy  is  recognized  equally  in  cities  spending  $5  and  $25  per 
inhabitant  in  fulfilling  their  municipal  functions. 


64  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Table  No.  12 

Tables  of  frequency.     Total  per  capita  expenditures  for  maintenance  and 

operation  according  to  population  groups.  >     All  cities  in  the  United 

States  above  30,000  population.     Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 


Groups — 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

Frequency. 

Frequency. 

Frequency. 

Frequency. 

1900 

1901 

1900         1901 

1900         1901 

1900         1901 

$    4 

0 

0 

1              0 

0             0 

0              1 

5 

0 

0 

0              0 

0            0 

3           2 

6 

0 

0 

1            0 

1            0 

3           4 

7 

0 

0 

0            1 

0            2 

6           7 

8 

0 

0 

1            2 

4            5 

4           8 

9 

0 

0 

1            1 

5            4 

9           6 

10 

0 

0 

0            2 

7          10 

6         10 

11 

2 

0 

3            1 

5            2 

3           0 

12 

2 

4 

1            2 

4            3 

3           3 

13 

1 

1 

2            4 

2           5 

2            4 

14 

2 

6 

3           0 

3           2 

0           1 

15 

3 

1 

2           2 

0           1 

5           4 

16 

1 

3 

0           0 

1            1 

5           6 

17 

1 

0 

1           0 

1           4 

2           1 

18 

2 

2 

0           0 

2           0 

2            1 

19 

2 

0 

0           4 

1            0 

0           0 

20 

1 

0 

0 

1            0 

0           0 

21 

0 

0 

2 

1            0 

0           0 

22 

0 

0 

1 

0           1 

0           0 

23 

0 

0 

1 

0           0 

24 

0 

0 

0           0 

25 

0 

0 

0           0 

26 

0 

0 

0           0 

27 

0 

0 

0           0 

28 

0 

1 

0           1 

29 

0 

0 

0 

30 

0 

0 

1 

31 

2 

0 

0 

32 

0 

0 

33 

0 

0 

34 

0 

0 

35 

0 

1 

36 

1 

Total, 

19 

19 

19         19 

39         40 

55         59 

Figures  12-16  represent  diagrammatically  the  data  assembled 
in  the  tables  of  frequency. 

Pearson  Coefficients  for  Per  Capita  Relationships. — It  is,  how- 
ever, from  the  Pearson  coefficients  of  correlation  that  we  ob- 
tain a  further  notion  of  the  relationships  that  exist  between 
certain  of  the  elements  of  municipal  expenditures.  The  details 
of  the  explanation  of  the  meaning  of  Table  13  need  not  be 
given  here,  as  they  are  similar  to  those  given  in  the  general 

1  See  Table  No.  8,  p.  45,  for  grouping  of  cities. 


PIG.  12. 


.80  .70  1.04  UX>  9J0O 


3.30 


FIG.  13. 


.90  .60  ljOO  LAO 


fUO 


FIG.14 


nJ  u 


1.00  fcjOO  B.97  4.00 


FIG.  15. 


l-h. 


Z3       r 


M 


uo 


.£0  .00  60  LOO  1.60 

Surfaces  of  Frequency — Per  Capita  Expenditures,  1901 

Fig.  12.     Police  Department,  Courts,  Jails,  etc.  Median,  $1.04. 

Fig   13.     Fire  Department.  Median,  1.00. 

Fig.  14.     Schools.  Median,  2.97. 

Fig.  15.     Street  Lighting.  Median,  .69. 

65 


66  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


__  PI  G.16. 


2a 


n 


4jOO  1850  SKW»  afl*00 

Surfaces  of  Frequency — Per  Capita  Expenditures,  1901 

Fig.  16.     Total   for    Municipal    Maintenance    and    Operation.     Median 
$12.30. 

explanation  of  the  meaning  of  the  Pearson  coefficient  and  in  the 
explanation  of  the  percentile  correlation.  They  signify  on  the 
whole  that  the  cities  spending  above  the  median  amount  per 
capita  on  public  education  will  spend  only  such  an  amount  above 
the  central  tendency  as  is  indicated  by  the  degree  of  relationship 
expressed  by  the  coefficient. 

Table  No.  13 

Table  of  Pearson  coefficients  of  correlation.     Per  capita  expenditures  for 

maintenance  and  operation.     All  cities  in  ths  United  States  above 

jo,ooo  population.     Fiscal  years  igoo  and  igoi 

Schools  with—  1900  1901 

Police  Department,  Courts,  etc +  .  232  +  .  319 

Fire  Department +  .  444  +  .  389 

Street  Lighting +.333  +.361 

Assessed  Valuation  of  Real  and  Personal  Property .  .  +  .  45 

The  last  correlation  of  those  given  in  the  preceding  table, 
though  somewhat  uncertain  in  value,  is  indicative  of  one  thing, 
namely,  that  while  there  is  a  decided  tendency,  on  the  part  of 
those  communities  possessing  a  large  amount  of  economic  wealth 
subject  to  taxation,  to  spend  a  large  per  capita  amount  on 
education,  these  communities  do  not,  in  proportion  to  their  in- 
creased wealth,  spend  a  proportionately  increased  amount  on 
education.  Any  accurate  or  valid  conclusion  regarding  the 
influence  of  the  amount  of  tax-producing  property  must  include 
a  consideration  of  the  relation  which  the  different  sources  of  the 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  67 

municipal  income  bear  to  one  another.  This  would  be  es- 
pecially necessary  for  all  of  those  cities  deriving  any  large 
amount  of  revenue  from  sources  other  than  the  general  property 
tax.  Real  value  of  property  as  distinguished  from  assessed 
value  would  be  a  far  better  basis  for  a  correlation  figure  which 
would  give  the  relation  between  potential  and  actual  support 
of  the  various  municipal  activities  under  a  regime  of  general 
property  taxation.  The  correlation  is  presented  here  not  be- 
cause it  stands  for  any  definite  condition  of  things,  but  primarily 
to  indicate  the  possibility  of  representing  in  a  concrete  manner 
the  relation  between  the  potential  and  the  assumed  responsibility 
of  cities  for  the  development  and  support  of  public  education. 

X.     Supplementary   Study    of   the   Variability   and   Cor- 
relation of  Municipal  Expenditures  1 

Data  of  Municipal  Expenditures  for  1902  and  1903. — Under 
the  title  of  Payments  for  General  and  Municipal  Service  Ex- 
penses by  Departments,  Offices,  and  Objects,2  the  Bureau  of 
the  Census  has  presented  the  data  of  the  expenditures  for 
maintenance  and  operation  of  the  various  municipal  depart- 
ments for  the  fiscal  years  1902  and  1903,  for  the  163  cities  of 
the  United  States  possessing  a  population  of  25,000  and  over. 
For  an  extended  exposition  of  the  sources  and  character  of  this 
data  reference  is  made  to  the  introductory  text,  accompanying 
the  statistics  of  cities.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  call  attention  to 
a  few  special  features  of  the  financial  statistics  which  distinguish 
them  from  others  of  their  kind,  especially  those  presented  in 
the  reports  of  the  Department  of  Labor,  and  which  give  to  them 
a  significant  value  for  the  present  purpose.  For  the  first  time 
in  the  actual  practice  of  gathering  and  presenting  on  a  large 
scale  municipal  financial  statistics,  an  effort  has  been  made  to 
differentiate  the  municipal  activities  and  to  adopt  a  terminology 
in  harmony  with  the  theory  and  principles  of  modern  public 
finance.     As  far  as  this  study  is  concerned  the  most  important 

1  I  desire  at  this  time  to  make  an  acknowledgment  of  my  deep  ob- 
ligation to  Mr.  L.  G.  Powers,  Chief  Statistician,  Bureau  of  the  Census, 
for  his  assistance  in  rendering  accessible  to  me,  before  the  distribution 
of  the  official  report,  the  data  upon  which  this  portion  of  the  study  is 
founded. 

2  Table  21,  Bulletin  20,  Bureau  of  the  Census  (1905),  pp.  204-293. 


68  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

distinction  made  is  that  between  governmental  and  commercial 
functions,  a  distinction  long  ago  pointed  out  by  writers  upon 
public  finance,  yet  one  of  somewhat  tardy  recognition  by  those  en- 
gaged in  gathering  and  presenting  the  financial  statistics  of  cities. 

The  term  governmental  functions  .  .  .  includes  those 
municipal  functions  which  are  as  a  rule  performed  for  all 
citizens  alike  without  any  attempt  to  measure  the  amount  of 
the  benefit  conferred  or  exact  compensation  therefor.  Most 
of  them  are  essential  to  the  existence  and  development  of 
government  and  to  the  performance  of  the  governmental  duty 
of  protecting  life  and  property  and  of  maintaining  a  high  stand- 
ard of  social  efficiency.  Chief  among  such  activities  are  those 
of  general  administration;  the  protection  of  life,  health,  and 
property;  the  care  of  the  defective,  delinquent,  and  dependent 
classes;  the  education  of  the  young,  and  the  performance  of 
other  duties  of  a  similar  nature ;  the  purchase  of  lands  for 
municipal  buildings,  parks,  and  streets;  the  erection,  equip- 
ment, and  management  of  city  halls  and  other  buildings  for 
general  municipal  uses;  and  the  purchase  or  construction  and 
operation  of  gas  and  electric  light  works  for  the  exclusive  pur- 
pose of  lighting  the  streets  and  the  city  buildings,  and  of  other 
structures  and  plants — such  as  printing  offices,  police  and 
fire  telephone  systems,  and  bridges — for  furnishing  free  of 
charge  any  commodity  or  service  required  by  the  city  in  the 
common  interest  of  all  its  citizens.  In  the  same  category  are 
included  the  opening,  grading,  paving,  and  curbing  of  streets, 
and  the  construction  of  sewers,  where  such  public  improve- 
ments are  made  at  public  expense,  without,  in  the  opinion  of 
the  proper  authorities,  conferring  upon  particular  individuals 
measurable  special  benefits,  for  which  compensation  is  exacted 
by  the  city.  To  the  same  general  group  belong  the  making 
and  paying  of  loans  and  the  payment  of  interest  thereon,  when 
such  loans  are  made  in  connection  with  the  other  activities  and 
transactions  before  mentioned. 

The  commercial  functions  of  cities  include  those  which 
create  trade  relations,  industrial  or  semi-industrial,  between 
the  municipality  and  the  general  public,  including  other  muni- 
cipalities or  civil  divisions.  Among  the  transactions  which 
arise  from  the  exercise  of  such  functions  are  those  involving  the 
loan  of  public  money  at  interest,  the  use  of  public  property 
for  compensation,  the  sale  of  any  commodity  or  article  of 
commerce,  or  the  performance  of  any  work  or  service  for  pay. 
All  these  transactions  involve  the  performance  by  the  city  of 
some  service  or  the  grant  of  some  favor  for  special  compensation, 
whether  such  service  is  undertaken  or  favor  granted  primarily 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education        69 

for  the  service  to  be  rendered  or  favor  bestowed,  or  for  the 
revenue  to  be  secured.  None  of  them  is  essential  to  the  ex- 
istence and  development  of  the  government,  although  they  may- 
be made  to  contribute  to  its  support. 

Commercial  functions,  together  with  commercial  and  semi- 
commercial  transactions  which  arise  from  them,  may  be  grouped 
into  three  subclasses,  here  designated  as  municipal  investments, 
municipal  industries,  and  municipal  services. 

(1)  Under  municipal  investments  are  included  all  trans- 
actions of  municipal  governments  connected  with  the  purchase, 
sale,  or  possession  of  real  property  or  securities  held  exclusively 
for  investment  purposes,  and  the  loan  of  public  money  to 
individuals,  corporations,  or  other  civil  divisions.  Such  trans- 
actions are  of  two  classes:  First,  those  of  the  sinking,  invest- 
ment, and  public -trust  funds  in  which  or  through  which  the 
city  invests  money  for  the  sole  purpose  of  deriving  interest, 
rent,  or  other  income  therefrom.  Second,  the  transactions  of 
a  more  temporary  character  by  which  the  city  receives  interest 
on  current  cash  deposits  and  on  deferred  payments  of  taxes 
and  special  assessments. 

(2)  Municipal  industries  are  those  activities — such  as  muni- 
cipal waterworks,  gas  and  electric  light  works,  and  street 
railways — which  are  organized  as  more  or  less  complete  depart- 
ments or  offices  of  cities  for  the  purpose  of  furnishing  economic 
utilities  to  individual  citizens  on  such  terms  as  may  be  deter- 
mined by  considerations  of  public  policy.  These  activities  are 
generally  referred  to  by  British  writers  as  municipal  trading. 
They  are  also  frequently  called  quasi-private  industries  or  en- 
terprises. As  economists  use  the  term,  a  quasi-private  industry 
or  enterprise  of  a  municipality  is  one  in  which  the  purpose  of 
realizing  a  net  income  or  profit  controls  the  method  of  manage- 
ment and  determines  the  charges,  as  in  a  private  business  of 
similar  character.  In  this  strict  sense  of  the  term  there  are 
few,  if  any,  quasi-private  industries  or  enterprises  in  the  United 
States,  the  greater  number  of  municipal  industries  established  in 
American  cities  having  been  called  into  existence  principally 
or  solely  to  promote  the  welfare  of  the  citizens.  Hence  the 
Bureau  of  the  Census  uses  the  term  municipal  industries  to 
include  not  merely  those  properly  designated  as  quasi- private, 
as  defined  above,  but  all  departments,  offices,  or  activities  or- 
ganized by  cities  to  furnish  utilities  to  their  citizens  for  a  com- 
pensation but  without  regard  to  the  question  of  profit. 

(3)  Municipal  services  include  all  activities  and  transactions, 
other  than  such  as  are  included  in  (1)  and  (2),  which  are  en- 
gaged in  by  cities  or  by  any  of  their  independent  branches  or 
departments  in  the  interest  of  the  general  public,  but  which 
confer  measurable  special  benefits — or  what  are  arbitrarily  so 
regarded — upon  particular  persons,   natural  or  corporate,   for 


7<d  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

which  compensation  is  exacted.  These  services  include  the 
opening  of  streets,  the  construction  of  pavements,  sidewalks, 
and  sewers,  the  sprinkling  of  streets,  and  similar  services,  the 
payments  for  which  are  enforced  by  means  of  special  assess- 
ments. To  the  same  category  belong  also  all  services  or  special 
benefits  rendered  to  private  individuals  or  to  other  civil  divi- 
sions under  legal  regulations,  and  paid  for  by  fees,  charges, 
rents,  privilege  rentals,  and  kindred  remuneration.1 

In  the  statistics  presented  by  the  bulletins  of  the  Depart- 
ment of  Labor  these  distinctions  were  not  made,  hence  all  ex- 
penditures on  account  of  municipal  investments,  industries, 
and  services  have  been  included  in  the  same  class  as  those  in- 
curred in  the  pursuit  of  the  more  generally  recognized  govern- 
mental functions.2 

The  second  important  character  of  these  statistics  for  1902 
and  1903  is  the  scheme  of  classification  of  the  expenses,  out- 
lays, and  revenues  of  cities.3  The  so-called  general  expenses 
are  those  in  the  exercise  of  governmental  functions.  In  the 
tables  the  general  expenses  are  divided  into  the  following 
classes:  (1)  General  Administration  (including  expenses  for 
mayor  and  executive  offices,  legislative  offices,  law  offices  and 
accounts,  finance  offices  and  accounts,  elections,  public  print- 
ing, etc.);  (2)  Public  Safety  (including  expenses  for  courts, 
police  department,  militia  and  armories,  fire  department,  de- 
partment of  inspection,  health  department,  etc.) ;  (3)  Public 
Charities  and  Corrections  (including  care  of  poor — in  and  out- 
side of  institutions — children  in  institutions,  lodging  houses, 
miscellaneous  charities,  hospitals,  prisons  and  reformatories) ; 
(4)  Public  Highways  and  Sanitation  (including  expenses  of 
street  paving,  lighting,  sprinkling  and  cleaning,  refuse  dis- 
posal,  sewers,  etc.) ;     (5)  Public  Education    (including  schools 

1  Bulletin  20,  Bureau  of  the  Census  (1905),  pp.  4-7. 

2  For  instance,  the  city  of  New  York  is  charged  with  an  expenditure 
for  the  maintenance  and  operation  of  the  water-works  system  for  the 
year  1901  the  sum  of  $3,000,990;  for  construction  and  other  capital 
outlay  on  account  of  the  water-works  system,  $3,450,780;  yet  the  re- 
ceipts of  the  water  department  during  1901  were  $8,050,900.  It  is 
manifestly  inaccurate  to  place  these  expenditures  on  account  of  the 
water  works  system  in  the  same  category  as  those  for  public  education. 

3  See  Introductory  Statement,  Bulletin  20,  Bureau  of  the  Census, 
(1905),  for  definitions  and  explanation. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  71 

and  libraries) ;  (6)  Public  Recreation  (including  expenses  for 
parks,  gardens,  baths,  public  celebrations  and  entertainments) ; 
(7)  Other  General  Expenditures;  (8)  Interest  on  Municipal 
Obligations.  While  it  is  not  the  purpose  here  to  contest  the 
economic  or  statistical  validity  of  the  method  of  classification 
followed  in  the  presentation  of  these  statistics  by  the  Census 
Bureau,  and  there  are  certain  points  open  to  criticism,  the 
above  description  of  their  general  nature  has  been  inserted  here 
primarily  to  direct  attention  to  their  increased  usefulness  for 
comparative  purposes  over  those  previously  gathered  by  the 
Department  of  Labor,  inasmuch  as  they  reflect  more  accur- 
ately than  any  former  statistics  the  fiscal  activity  of  American 
cities. 

Selection  of  Cities  for  Study. — In  this  portion  of  the  study  it 
was  deemed  more  expedient  to  make  a  somewhat  narrower 
selection  of  cities  than  that  followed  previously.  To  this  end 
the  group  of  cities  having  a  population  of  from  25,000  to  50,000 
was  taken.  This  selection  was  broad  enough  to  give  a  repre- 
sentative group,  inasmuch  as  of  the  163  cities  of  the  United 
States  having  in  1902  a  population  of  25,000  and  over,  78,  or 
a  trifle  less  than  50  %  of  them,  fell  within  the  group  chosen  for 
study.  At  the  same  time  this  selection  produced  perhaps  a 
somewhat  greater  homogeneity  of  conditions  affecting  muni- 
cipal expenditures  than  that  of  the  group  of  cities  previously 
studied. 

Preliminary  Arrangement  of  Data. — By  reason  of  the  system 
of  distributive  grouping  of  expenditures  employed  by  the 
Census  Bureau,  it  was  thought  advisable  for  the  present  purpose 
to  combine  under  a  fairly  small  number  of  representative  and 
comparable  headings  the  payments  recorded  for  general  and 
municipal  service  expenses.  Without  interfering  with  the 
mode  of  differentiation  of  these  payments  as  presented  in  the 
tables,  the  total  payments  for  general  and  municipal  service 
expenses  were  divided  into  seventeen  classes,  as  follows: 

1.  Expenses  for  General  Administration.  Including  ex- 
penses for  all  executive  and  legislative  offices,  law  offices  and 
accounts,  finance  offices  and  accounts,  statistical  and  mis- 
cellaneous general  offices,  city  hall,  and  elections. 

2.  Expenses  for  Courts. 

3.  Expenses    for    Police    Department.     Including    expenses 


TABLE 

Showing  percentages  of  total  payments  for  general  and  municipal  service 

years  IQ02  and  IQ03.     Cities  between 


Cities.  -3.2  .          "*i  ^  J,  ~ « 

O  O  ft.  S          ft.  K 

1  Schenectady,  N.  Y 11.54  .67    11.87  9.22  1.40 

2  Youngstown,  Ohio 8.21  .05    13.41  9.92  2.56 

3  Holyoke,  Mass 10.32  .13      7.18  .001    10.66  2.25 

4  Fort  Wayne,  Ind 6.83  .28      9.34  15.77  2.11 

5  Akron,  Ohio 6.64  .13      8.05  .09      17.00  1.04 

6  Saginaw,  Mich 9.24  .67      8.54  7.27  .57 

7  Tacoma,  Wash 6.45  .25      6.51  8.73  .82 

8  Covington,  Ky 1128  1.17    10.25  9.10  1.72 

9  Lancaster,  Pa 7.77  1.08  7.69  .72 

10  Dallas,  Tex 7.66  .49      9.90  11.02  .18 

11  Lincoln,  Nebr 8.08  .35      4.69  8.71  .82 

12  Brockton,  Mass 9.37  7.44  .32        9.20  1.59 

13  Pawtucket,  R.  I 8.86  .07.8.10  6.81  .63 

14  Birmingham,  Ala 7.52  .69    12.32  .07      13.45  1.97 

15  Little  Rock,  Ark 12.08  .90    16.78  15.05  1.96 

16  Spokane,  Wash 7.96  .42      5.35  10.27  1.18 

17  Altoona,  Pa 8.93  5.36  9.01  .83 

18  Augusta,  Ga 

19  Binghamton,  N.  Y 8.69  1.19      7.62  6.79  1.28 

20  Mobile,  Ala 

21  South  Bend,  Ind 7.94  .32      9.49  13.88  .29 

22  Wheeling,  W.  Va 8.17  .12    11.22  13.47  1.47 

23  Springfield,  Ohio 7.88  .65      7.57  8.99  2.22 

24  Johnstown,  Pa 6.10  8.85  5.89  1.53 

25  Haverhill,  Mass 6.29  6.98  .19        9.98  .97 

26  Topeka,  Kan 7.52  .37      6.76  11.52  2.23 

27  Terre  Haute,  Ind 6.37  .27      8.84  19.43  3.33 

28  Allentown,  Pa 7.09  6.00  9.61  2.10 

29  McKeesport,  Pa 9.90  11.18  10.30  3.34 

30  Dubuque,  Iowa 8.43  .01       8.20  10.08  .61 

31  Butte,  Mont 9.15  .51    13.73  12.48  1.26 

32  Davenport,  Iowa 6.60  .36      7.34  13.52  .87 

33  Quincy,  111 5.93  .37      8.03  15.55  .36 

34  Salem,  Mass 7.18  8.62  .79        7.57  3.61 

35  Elmira,  N.  Y 11.35  1.21      8.18  12.90  1.92 

36  Maiden,  Mass 5.09  5.94  .11        5.68  2.11 

37  Bayonne,  N.  J 9.46  1.49    13.13  .11        2.99  .90 

38  Superior,  Wis 13.53  .41       6.88  18.37  2.98 

39  York,  Pa 6.53  8.65  9.85  1.05 

40  Newton,  Mass 7.67  7.73  .05        5.14  .87 

41  East  St.  Louis,  111 8.82  1.13      8.72  9.98  .87 

42  Springfield,  111 8.55  11.75  15.48  .85 

43  Chester,  Pa 9.24  9.30  7.10  5.22 

44  Chelsea,  Mass 5.78  7.92  .06        6.94  1.69 

45  Fitchburg,  Mass 6.37  8.31  .07        8.26  1.48 

46  Knoxville,  Tenn 8.10  8.07  12.38  4.33 

47  Rockford,  111 5.32  .26      7.00  12.07  .67 

48  Sioux  City,  Iowa 8.08  .33      6.80  7.38  .84 

49  Montgomery,  Ala 6.05  .42     13.07  8.10  3.05 

50  Taunton,  Mass 6.90  .19      8.71  .19        6.22  1.90 

51  Newcastle,  Pa 8.09  .08      6.75  10.75  .77 

52  Passaic,  N.  J 8.96  1.35      6.11  .10        8.29  1.36 

53  Atlantic  City,  N.  J 7.96  .82    11.58  .01       14.25  1.67 

54  Canton,  Ohio 5.88  8.25  11.19  1.44 

55  Jacksonville,  Fla 

56  Galveston,  Tex 8.54  .26      9.78  12.15  1.52 

57  Auburn,  N.  Y 9.38  1.15      7.01  10.52  .92 

58  Racine,  Wis 6.24  1.03      4.13  14.14  1.19 

59  South  Omaha,  Neb 12.16  .89      7.12  9.52  1.21 

60  Joplin,  Mo 8.84  .60      9.89  13.85  .92 

61  Joliet,  111 6.92  10.29  9.49  1.98 

62  Chattanooga,  Tenn 7.83  .57    12.19  15.72  3.02 

63  Woonsocket  R.  I 6.76  .06      8.24  8.35  1.79 

64  Sacramento,  Cal 8.50  .85      8.90  9.66  1.12 

65  La  Crosse,  Wis 10.45  6.91  13.39  .86 

66  Oshkosh,  Wis 9.88  .50      5.52  15.67  1.69 

67  Newport,  Ky 8.86  .26      8.53  5.26  2.56 

68  Williamsport,  Pa 9.42  4.97  12.48  1.13 

69  Pueblo,  Col 11.02  .20      8.00  6.83  2.29 

70  Council  Bluffs,  Iowa 6.17  .77      5.96  16.73  .12 

71  New  Britain,  Conn 5.46  .82      6.23  10.28  3.51 

72  Cedar  Rapids,  Iowa 0.45  1.10      6.68  8.97  2.27 

73  Lexington,  Ky 15.66  1.01    12.03  .02        9.53  1.80 

74  Bay  City,  Mich 14.55  .72      8.92  10.68  .24 

75  Fort  Worth,  Tex 7.15  .30      7.62  8.78  .53 

76  Easton,  Pa 7.40  6.35  9.12  .40 

77  Gloucester,  Mass 11.37  7.88  .20        9.53  1.83 

78  Jackson,  Mich 9.03  .95      8.16  13.32  .91 

1  For  explanations  concerning  the  derivation  of  this  table,  see  p.  74. 

72 


No.  14  > 

expenses  devoted  to  each  of  the  itemized  purposes.     Average  for  the  fiscal 
25,000  and  50,000  population 


gs 

■2d 

rt.2 

to 

—  w 

c 

0 

u 

c 
3 

rt  0 

to  0 

<0  £ 

Xj 

ns  S 

D.5 

a>  52 

0 

a  to 

«  8J 

H 

"33 

■o 
0 

u  aj 

1* 

"is 
u 

c 
a 

0  *J 

0 

0  to 

a 

0 

o, 

a 

a, 

w 

J 

a, 

O 

0 

w 

4.21 

4.83 

7.85 

10.65 

21.70 

.63 

.24 

.84 

14.28 

.03 

1 

.35 

2.64 

3.86 

5.51 

6.86 

37.05 

1.02 

.47 

8.13 

2 

7.82 

7.02 

3.90 

4.39 

26.66 

1.36 

1.23 

14.32 

3.36 

3 

.33 

.06 

4.89 

8.28 

6.00 

33.02 

1.35 

3.06 

8.83 

4 

06 

3.30 

7.79 

8.08 

1.48 

37.05 

1.73 

.60 

6.89 

5 

3.23 

14.37 

3.93 

3.62 

36.05 

1.07 

.32 

12.05 

6 

.24 

6.63 

1.33 

28.50 

.98 

2.01 

1.92 

35.70 

7 

3.10 

4.44 

6.41 

6.11 

24.70 

1.20 

.03 

20.37 

.08 

8 

.54 

12.26 

13.95 

5.97 

32.32 

.13 

8.64 

.09 

9 

3.85 

12.18 

5.50 

3.63 

22.80 

.81 

.74 

.29 

20.85 

10 

.10 

3.26 

4.06 

2.81 

40.80 

1.46 

.02 

24.77 

.08 

11 

8.69 

9.98 

4.53 

5.28 

25.06 

1.66 

.40 

1.24 

12.81 

2.52 

12 

.28 

2.94 

9.25 

5.61 

4.27 

23.75 

1.33 

.47 

25.06 

2.61 

13 

.08 

1.94 

10.96 

3.60 

4.14 

13.72 

.04 

.63 

28.57 

.31 

14 

3.88 

9.03 

2.27 

1.71 

30.30 

1.21 

3.48 

1.18 

15 

1.71 

8.48 

1.74 

1.77 

29.65 

.48 

1.60 

3.60 

25.83 

16 

.84 

8.28 

5.09 

2.95 

38.40 

20.25 

.02 

17 

No  data  for  schools. 

18 

.30 

13.35 

9.30 

9.12 

2.79 

31.90 

.001 

1.03 

6.73 

19 

No  data  for  schools. 

20 

.31 

7.61 

7.35 

5.22 

32.30 

1.13 

2.15 

.48 

11.65 

.05 

21 

1.68 

4.88 

7.84 

6.12 

33.67 

1.71 

9.15 

.58 

22 

.05 

2.81 

4.00 

12.43 

7.98 

31.90 

1.38 

1.96 

10.23 

23 

.20 

4.71 

11.85 

6.44 

.001 

47.05 

.55 

6.87 

24 

.05 

13.62 

10.40 

6.61 

2.31 

25.76 

2.24 

1.71 

.07 

12.50 

.27 

25 

.56 

9.86 

3.72 

1.60 

41.76 

1.22 

.61 

12.36 

26 

.16 

.51 

2.69 

7.71 

5.59 

39.35 

.73 

.49 

4.41 

27 

.45 

.10 

8.19 

7.45 

3.39 

42.88 

.08 

12.60 

28 

.30 

1.20 

5.96 

6.23 

3.79 

35.43 

.94 

11.22 

29 

8.09 

7.22 

4.56 

29.98 

1.33 

.45 

21.02 

30 

.02 

.84 

8.71 

4.08 

3.55 

36.35 

2.79 

.05 

6.20 

.34 

31 

.18 

9.42 

8.16 

7.79 

37.10 

.95 

3.22 

4.51 

32 

1.96 

4.79 

7.13 

4.20 

29.56 

1.52 

2.69 

18.05 

33 

.45 

17.65 

5.86 

7.68 

3.66 

25.22 

2.33 

2.33 

6.97 

34 

.02 

3.95 

9.95 

8.77 

2.37 

25.75 

.51 

1.72 

.02 

11.33 

35 

6.26 

9.33 

4.71 

3.63 

27.80 

2.29 

.42 

14.72 

11.26 

.61 

36 

.87 

6.43 

7.34 

2.14 

32.77 

.87 

.40 

21.07 

37 

1.79 

9.87 

3.65 

1.30 

36.45 

1.40 

3.42 

38 

.06 

.70 

9.19 

9.03 

7.59 

37.55 

.12 

.79 

8.84 

39 

3.74 

10.74 

5.12 

4.55 

21.58 

1.55 

.65 

9.43 

20.69 

.57 

40 

13.91 

4.04 

2.03 

. 33 . 75 

1.00 

.05 

15.65 

41 

.70 

1.13 

3.68 

7.29 

3.70 

28.11 

.93 

3.34 

1.57 

12.85 

.01 

42 

4.45 

3.75 

8.16 

3.44 

34.92 

.80 

13.75 

43 

.33 

9.98 

7.02 

5.30 

4.37 

24.03 

.92 

.65 

13.98 

9.60 

1.31 

44 

11.79 

11.35 

6.82 

3.07 

26.28 

1.59 

.82 

.32 

13.35 

.02 

45 

3.59 

6.39 

8.37 

3.52 

19.75 

25.54 

46 

.73 

6.88 

9.10 

5.85 

40.70 

3.43 

.26 

7.68 

47 

.02 

8.36 

4.10 

6.62 

30.01 

.68 

.61 

26.12 

48 

2.10 

7.78 

5.41 

3.43 

12.87 

.30 

.79 

34.25 

2.43 

49 

.35 

9.52 

11.23 

3.09 

2.36 

25.75 

1.66 

.71 

.30 

17.85 

3.13 

50 

5.97 

7.95 

1.17 

3.67 

47.25 

.04 

7.60 

51 

.15 

3.86 

6.90 

6.82 

3.98 

37.77 

1.50 

1.77 

1.31 

9.76 

52 

.22 

4.46 

5.20 

6.74 

13.30 

16.76 

.54 

.33 

1.13 

15.16 

53 

.32 

1.19 

3.53 

8.69 

6.92 

35.79 

.90 

1.33 

.12 

14.79 

54 

No  data  for  schools. 

55 

8.85 

5.69 

1.77 

7.64 

20.25 

.31 

.30 

22.95 

56 

7.96 

8.42 

9.27 

4.54 

29.50 

.62 

.04 

7.49 

3.22 

57 

4.17 

13.27 

5.28 

.21 

39.20 

3.03 

.03 

8.00 

58 

1.67 

4.62 

6.06 

.18 

40.17 

.08 

.17 

16.31 

59 

.74 

10.30 

.18 

44.50 

1.71 

.01 

1.60 

6.95 

60 

.80 

.79 

7.12 

7.47 

6.63 

38.42 

1.91 

2.00 

6.17 

61 

.18 

7.52 

3.90 

6.70 

5.19 

17.90 

.16 

2.03 

.17 

16.85 

62 

5.75 

10.09 

5.91 

3.68 

20.57 

.24 

.09 

3.15 

22.27 

2.99 

63 

.21 

.36 

12.60 

8.05 

8.39 

35.30 

2.46 

1.20 

2.33 

64 

.06 

.06 

5.23 

5.79 

3.17 

39.27 

.55 

.31 

6.59 

7.48 

65 

3.74 

12.93 

5.62 

1.56 

33.57 

2.26 

.78 

.06 

6.35 

66 

.09 

3.54 

6.09 

6.94 

5.22 

26.04 

1.44 

.05 

35.42 

67 

8.09 

6.24 

7.56 

2.25 

35.94 

.88 

10.80 

68 

.46 

11.50 

4.04 

1.61 

33.27 

.80 

3.81 

.15 

12.52 

3.44 

69 

.26 

.14 

5.07 

4.72 

2.27 

42.82 

1.50 

2.30 

11.12 

70 

6.30 

6.19 

6.04 

38..  26 

.94 

15.90 

.06 

71 

.01 

13.65 

6.53 

3.57 

38.45 

1.90 

1.84 

.45 

8.16 

72 

8.64 

5.38 

7.82 

2.60 

22.30 

.49 

.06 

12.65 

.01 

73 

.29 

9.46 

4.80 

33.61 

1.05 

.57 

15.18 

74 

.16 

1.01 

10.36 

1.03 

.76 

18.45 

.89 

.33 

37.15 

5.41 

75 

10.36 

.39 

2.60 

50.87 

1.15 

.07 

11.25 

76 

.18 

13.38 

13.39 

3.80 

.91 

22.50 

.40 

13.78 

77 

.08 

6.10 

12.85 

6.52 

4.79 

27.60 

1.49 

.50 

7.49 

.80 

78 

73 


74  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

for  police,  department  of  inspection   (other  than  health),  and 
pounds. 

4.  Expenses  for  Militia. 

5.  Expenses  for  Fire  Department. 

6.  Expenses  for  Health  Department. 

7.  Expenses  for  Miscellaneous  Public  Safety.  Not  included 
under  2,  3,  4,  5,  and  6. 

8.  Expenses  for  Charities  and  Corrections.  Including  ex- 
penses for  poor  in,  and  out,  of  institutions,  children  in,  and  out, 
of  institutions,  miscellaneous  charities;  expenses  for  hospitals, 
insane,  prisons  and  reformatories. 

9.  Expenses  for  Public  Highways.  Including  general  man- 
agement and  engineering  expenses,  expenses  for  street  paving, 
sidewalks,  bridges,  snow  removal  and  street  sprinkling. 

10.  Expenses  for  Street  Lighting. 

11.  Expenses  for  Public  Sanitation.  Including  expenses 
for  street  cleaning,  refuse  disposal,  sewers,  and  sewage  disposal. 

12.  Expenses  for  Public  Education. 

13.  Expenses  for  Libraries,  Art  Galleries,  and  Museums. 

14.  Expenses  for  Public  Recreation.  Including  expenses 
for  parks  and  gardens,  baths  and  bathing  beaches,  celebrations 
and  entertainments. 

15.  Miscellaneous  General  Expenses. 

16.  Expenses  for  Interest  on  Municipal  Obligations.  In- 
cluding only  net  corporate  payments,  which  equal  gross  interest 
payments  made  to  public,  less  the  included  accrued  interest 
receipts  from  public. 

17.  Expenses  for  Service  Transfers. 

Transformation  of  Gross  Itemized  Expenditures  to  a  Per- 
centile Basis. — As  in  the  former  case,  the  first  operation  was  to 
transform  the  gross  itemized  expenditures  to  a  percentile  basis. 
This  was  accomplished,  though  not  without  much  tedious  arith- 
metical labor,  for  the  group  of  75  1  cities  for  the  fiscal  year  1902 
and  the  fiscal  year  1903.  The  percentile  expenditures  thus  ob- 
tained were  then  averaged  for  the  two  years,  item  for  item. 
These  average  percentile  amounts  are  contained  in  Table  14. 

1  Three  cities  necessarily  omitted  from  the  total  number  of  cities — 78 
— on  account  of  the  absence  of  data. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


75 


XI.     Supplementary  Study   of  the  Variability   and  Cor- 
relation of  Municipal  Expenditures — (Cont.) 

As  with  Tables  i  and  2,  a  cursory  examination  of  the  percentile 
amounts  in  Table  14  reveals  a  very  wide  range  of  expenses  in 
the  identical  municipal  departments  of  the  different  cities.  This 
variability  is  perhaps  all  the  more  noteworthy  when  it  is  recalled 
that  the  percentile  amounts  are  for  cities  within  a  very  narrow 
population  range,  and  is  confirmatory  of  the  previous  argument 
concerning  the  relation  between  variability  and  population.1 

Table  No.   15 
Average  percentile  payments  for  general  and  municipal 
All  cities  between  2 §,000  and  50,000  population. 
Fiscal  years  1002  and  IQ03 


Tables  of  frequency, 
service  expenses. 


<u 

a 
u 

C  h 

O 

<u 

.a 

3 

V 

s 
a 

e 

4-> 

V 
U 

.0 

3 

fi 

O 

ft. 

E 

cx, 

Below  1 

1 

6 

O 

20 

1 

1 

4 

8 

10 

2 

1 

1 

2 

1 

12 

4 

3 

0 

6 

3 

7 

17 

11 

4 

3 

0 

7 

4 

8 

10 

5 

5 

6 

5 

4 

6 

5 

11 

7 

2 

6 

16 

12 

5 

9 

6 

13 

8 

2 

7 

14 

12 

5 

7 

7 

13 

4 

3 

8 

17 

21 

9 

7 

8 

8 

1 

4 

9 

10 

6 

15 

11 

9 

4 

0 

2 

10 

2 

3 

8 

7 

10 

0 

1 

0 

11 

5 

5 

3 

4 

11 

0 

0 

1 

12 

2 

3 

6 

5 

12 

1 

0 

0 

13 

1 

4 

7 

4 

13 

1 

1 

3 

14 

1 

0 

2 

1 

14 

0 

15 

1 

0 

6 

15 

0 

16 

0 

1 

1 

16 

0 

17 

0 

1 

17 

1 

18 

0 

1 

18 

19 

0 

1 

19 

Total,  75  75  75  75  72  75  68 

Tables  of  Frequency. — The  data  of  Table  15  present  the  taoles 
of  frequency  for  each  of  the  items  of  expenditure  enumerated  in 
Table  14,  excepting  courts,  militia,  miscellaneous  public  safety, 
general  and  service  transfers.  Expenses  under  these  headings  were 
given  for  but  few  of  the  cities,  hence  rendering  useless  for  com- 
parative purposes  the  presentation  of  the  forms  of  distribution. 
These  tables  of  frequency  are  to  be  interpreted  in  the  same  man- 
ner as  the  similar  tables  in  the  preceding  portion  of  the  study.2 
1  See  p.  42.  2  See  p.  31     also  note  2  of  p.  31. 


76  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Table  No.   15  {Continued) 

Tables  of  frequency.    Average  percentile  payments  for  general  and  municipal 

service  expenses.     All  cities  between  25,000  and  §0,000  population. 

Fiscal  years  1002  and  1003 


V 
0 

0 

v 

CD 
U 

U 

.0 
3 

a- 
to 
u 

<u 
u 

£ 

w 

fe 

J 

fe 

Ph 

&H 

X 

fe 

►— 1 

Below  .  1 

3 

.1 

13 

12 

1 

.1 

2 

.1 

2 

.1 

2 

2 

1 

13 

1 

.2 

1 

.2 

2 

.2 

2 

3 

2 

14 

0 

.3 

2 

!3 

5 

13 

1 

4 

2 

15 

0 

.4 

2 

.4 

8 

.4 

1 

5 

0 

16 

1 

.5 

3 

.5 

3 

.5 

2 

6 

8 

17 

1 

.6 

3 

.6 

6 

.6 

3 

7 

5 

18 

1 

.7 

1 

.7 

5 

.7 

2 

8 

6 

19 

1 

.8 

4 

.8 

3 

.8 

9 

9 

3 

20 

2 

.9 

6 

.9 

1 

.9 

5 

10 

3 

21 

2 

1.0 

4 

1.0 

1 

1.0 

2 

11 

5 

22 

3 

1.1 

2 

1.1 

0 

1.1 

4 

12 

8 

23 

1 

1.2 

2 

1.2 

3 

1.2 

3 

13 

3 

24 

2 

1.3 

5 

1.3 

1 

1.3 

1 

14 

3 

25 

5 

1.4 

4 

1.4 

0 

1.4 

4 

15 

4 

26 

3 

1.5 

5 

1.5 

0 

1.5 

3 

16 

2 

27 

0 

1.6 

2 

1.6 

1 

1.6 

3 

17 

1 

28 

2 

1.7 

3 

1.7 

3 

1.7 

2 

18 

1 

29 

4 

1.8 

0 

1.8 

1 

1.8 

2 

19 

0 

30 

2 

1.9 

2 

1.9 

1 

1.9 

5 

20 

4 

31 

2 

2.0 

0 

2.0 

3 

2.0 

0 

21 

2 

32 

3 

2.1 

0 

2.1 

1 

2.1 

3 

22 

2 

33 

6 

2.2 

3 

2.2 

0 

2.2 

5 

23 

0 

34 

1 

2^3 

1 

2.3 

2 

2.3 

0 

24 

1 

35 

4 

2.4 

1 

2.4 

0 

2.4 

0 

25 

4 

36 

3 

2.5 

0 

2.5 

0 

2.5 

2 

26 

1 

37 

5 

2.6 

0 

2.6 

1 

2.6 

0 

27 

0 

38 

4 

2.7 

1 

2.7 

0 

2.7 

0 

28 

1 

39 

3 

2.8 

0 

2.8 

0 

2.8 

0 

29 

0 

40 

3 

2.9 

0 

2.9 

0 

2.9 

1 

30 

0 

41 

1 

3.0 

1 

3.0 

1 

3.0 

2 

31 

0 

42 

2 

3.1 

0 

3.1 

0 

3.1 

0 

32 

0 

43 

0 

3.2 

0 

3.2 

1 

3.2 

0 

33 

0 

44 

1 

3.3 

0 

3.3 

1 

3.3 

2 

34 

1 

45 

0 

3.4 

1 

3.4 

0 

3.4 

0 

35 

1 

46 

0 

3.5 

0 

3.5 

1 

36 

0 

47 

2 

3.6 

0 

3.6 

1 

37 

1 

48 

0 

3.7 

0 

49 

0 

3.8 

1 

4.3 

1 

50 

1 

5.2 

1 

64 


70 


75 


75 


Total,  75 

Figures  17  to  28,  pp.  77-80,  represent  diagrammatically  the 
form  of  the  distribution  of  the  percentile  expenses  for  each  of 
the  items  indicated  in  Table  15. 


PIG.  17 


aos 


11 


15 


PIG.  18. 


as 

L_ 

e.ie 


18 


16 


F  i  a  ia 


Surfaces  of  Frequency — Percentile  Payments  for  General  and 
Municipal  Service  Expenses.  Average  for  Fiscal  Years  1902 
and  1903.  Seventy-five  Cities  between  25,000  and  50,000 
Population. 

Fig.  17.     General  Administration.         Median,    8.08. 
Fig.  18.     Police  Department.  Median,     8.16. 

Fig.  19.     Fire  Department.  Median,     9.98. 

77 


FIG.  20. 


4,         a.43 


10 


13 


FIG.  81. 


M 


BJ.9 


14 


FIG.  22. 


to 


o    .1 


3.87 


8 


13 


Surfaces  of  Frequency — Percentile  Payments  for  General  and 
Municipal  Service  Expenses.  Average  for  Fiscal  Years  1902 
and  1903  Seventy-five  Cities  between  25,000  and  50,000 
Population. 


Fig.  20.     Street  Lighting. 
Fig.  21.     Public  Highways. 
Fig.  22.     Public  Sanitation. 


Median,  6.43. 
Median,  8.19. 
Median,     3.67. 


78 


FIG.  28. 


0  .5  1.14 


fl 


F  I  G.25. 


M 


1 


II 


.61 


2.0 


n  nn  n 


3* 


Surfaces  of  Frequency — Percentile  Payments  for  General  and 
Municipal  Service  Expenses.  Average  for  Fiscal  Years  1902 
and  1903.  Seventy-five  Cities  between  25,000  and  50,000 
Population. 


Fig.  23.     Schools. 

Fig.  24.     Libraries,  etc. 

Fig.  25.     Public  Recreation. 


Median,    32.3. 
Median,       1.14. 
Median,         .61. 


79 


n 


PIG,fl& 


P. 


■ 


□     D      0 

3.8  5,S 


1.4 


FIG,£7. 


JZL 


n 


JZD 


3.C3 


17 


III 


P  I  Gj28. 


Ln 


ias 


10   nn 


a? 


Surfaces  op  Frequency — Percentile  Payments  for  General  and 
Municipal  Service  Expenses.  Average  for  Fiscal  Years;  1902 
and  1903.  Seventy-five  Cities  between  25,000  and  50,000 
Population. 


Fig.  26.     Health  Department.  Median,  1.4. 

Fig.  27.     Charities  and  Corrections.  Median,  3.02 

Fig.  28.     Interest  on  Debt.  Median,  12.5. 

So 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  81 

Measurement  of  Variability;  Probable  Error. — Recalling  the 
discussion  in  Section  VI  regarding  the  methods  of  determining 
the  character  of  the  variability  exhibited  by  the  different  items, 
the  following  table  will  be  self-explanatory: 

Table  No.  16 

Table  of  measures  of  variability  of  percentile  payments  for  general  and 

municipal  service  expenses.    Seventy-five  cities  between  25,000  and 

50,000  population.    Average  of  fiscal  years  IQ02  and  1003 

Fifty  percent  of  the  cases  lie  between  2  p.  e. 

General  Administration 6.76%  and  9 .  24  %  2 .  48  % 

Police  Department 6.98        "9.49  2.51 

Fire  Department 8.71         "    12 .  99  4 .  28 

Health  Department .87        "1.98  1.11 

Charities  and  Corrections .79        "      5.75  4.99 

Public  Highways 6.00        "    10.30  4.30 

Street  Lighting 4.10        "      7.71  3.61 


6.98 

'      9.49 

8.71 

'    12.99 

.87 

'      1.98 

.79 

'      5.75 

6.00 

'    10.30 

4.10 

'      7.71 

2.37 

'     5.22 

25.75 

'    37.10 

.73 

'      1.55 

.29 

'      1.20 

8.13 

'    15.99 

Public  Sanitation 2.37  "      5.22  1.85 

Schools 25.75  "    37.10  11.35 

Libraries .73  "      1 .  55  .77 

Public  Recreation .29  "1.20  .91 

Interest  on  Debt 8.13  "    15.99  5.86 

Remembering  the  differences  in  the  data  used  in  deriving 
the  percentile  basis  of  Table  16  and  of  Table  4 a,  and  keeping  in 
mind  the  difference  in  the  grouping  of  the  cities  concerned,  the 
two  sets  of  P.  E.  are  scarcely  comparable.  Each  set  of  data, 
however,  serves  as  an  index  of  the  wide  degree  of  variability 
which  exists  in  municipal  expenses. 

Measurement  of  Variability — Deviation  from  Central  Ten- 
dency.— As  in  the  case  of  the  statistics  for  1900  and  1901,  the 
variability  of  each  item  of  expense  has  been  measured  by  means 
of  the  amount  by  which  each  member  of  the  group  of  cities 
deviates  from  the  median  of  the  group.  The  individual  devia- 
tions, plus  and  minus,  are  reproduced  in  Table  17.  From  these 
individual  measures  it  is  possible  to  determine  the  character  of 
the  group  variability  in  each  item  of  expense  in  several  ways. 
First,  the  average  amount  by  which  each  city  varies  from  the 
central  tendency — in  this  case  the  median — of  any  item  would 
give  the  average  deviation,  or  A.  D.  Second,  a  more  accurate 
statement  of  the  preceding,  viz.,  the  square  root  of  the  average 
of  the  squares  of  the  deviations  from  the  median  of  any  item 
of  expense  would  give  the  so-called  standard  deviation  for  the 
entire  group  of  cities.  The  average  and  standard  deviations 
are  presented  in  Table  18  for  each  of  the  different  items  of 
expense. 


Table  No.   17 

Medians,  and  deviations  from  medians,  of  percentile  payments  for  general  and  municipal 

service  expenses  of  cities  in  the  United  States  having  a  population  of  25,000- 

50,000.      Average  for  fiscal  years  1002  and  iooj 


'0 

*o 

6 
2 

e 
(  0 

O 

a 
jp 

a  . 

a  C 

0  <D 

ft 

u 

a  . 

(0  -M 

u 

a 
a 

9) 

Q   . 
■Si 

a 

T3 

C  to 

SB 

O 

JZ 

£ 

ft 

M 

£ 

bo 

U 

u 

3 
'3 

1* 

ft 

Schools. 
Libraries,    Mu- 

•o.a 

C  c 

-"rt 

n! 

1 

0 
O 

%% 

ft 

G 
O 

c 

'0 

'o 
6 

Me- 

Me- 

dian 

8.08 

8.16 

9.98 

1.40 

3.02 

8.19 

6.43 

3.67 

32.30 

1.14 

.61 

12.50 

dian 

1 

3.46 

3.71 

-    .76 

.00 

1.19 

-3.36 

1.34 

6.98 

-10.60  - 

.51 

-    .37 

1.78 

1 

2 

.13 

5.25 

-    .06 

1.16 

-      .38 

-4.33 

-    .92 

3.19 

4.75  - 

.12 

-    .14 

-   4.37 

2 

3 

2.24 

-    .98 

.68  ■ 

.85 

4.80 

-1.17 

-2.53 

.72 

-   5.64 

.22 

.62 

1.82 

3 

4 

-1.25 

1.18 

5.79 

.71 

-   2.97 

-3.30 

1.85 

2.33 

.72 

.21 

2.45 

-   3.67 

4 

5 

-1.44 

-    .11 

7.02 

-    .36 

.07 

-    .40 

1.65 

-2.19 

4.75 

.59 

-    .01 

-   5.61 

5 

6 

1.16 

.38 

-2.71 

-    .87 

.21 

6.18 

-2.50 

-    .05 

3.75  - 

.07 

-    .29 

-      .45 

6 

7 

-1.63 

-1.65 

-1.25 

-    .58 

-   2.78 

-1.56 

* 

-2.34 

-   3.80  - 

.16 

1.40 

23.20 

7 

8 

3.20 

2.09 

-    .88 

.32 

.08 

-3.73 

-    .02 

2.44 

-   7.60 

.06 

-    .58 

7.87 

8 

9 

-    .31 

1.92 

-2.29 

-    .68 

-   2.58 

4.07 

6.47 

2.30 

.02 

* 

-    .48 

-   3.86 

9 

10 

-    .42 

1.74 

1.04 

-1.22 

.83 

4.09 

-    .93 

-    .04 

-   9.50  - 

.33 

.13 

8.35 

10 

11 

.00 

-3.47 

-1.28 

-    .58 

-   2.92 

-4.93 

-2.37 

-    .37 

8.50 

.32 

-    .59 

12.27 

11 

12 

1.29 

-    .72 

-    .78 

.19 

5.67 

1.79 

-1.90 

1.61 

-    7.24 

.52 

-    .21 

.31 

12 

13 

.78 

-    .06 

-3.17 

-    .77 

-      .08 

1.06 

-    .82 

.60 

-   8.55 

.19 

-    .14 

12.56 

13 

14 

-    .56 

4.16 

3.47 

.57 

-    1.08 

2.77 

-2.83 

.47 

-18.58  - 

1.10 

.02 

16.07 

14 

15 

4.00 

8.62 

5.07 

.56 

.86 

.84 

-4.16 

-1.96 

-   2.00 

* 

.60 

-   9.02 

15 

16 

-    .12 

-2.81 

.29 

-    .22 

-    1.31 

.29 

-4.69 

-1.90 

-   2.55  - 

.66 

.99 

13.33 

16 

17 

.85 

-2.80 

-    .97 

-    .57 

* 

.09 

-1.34 

-    .72 

6.10 

* 

* 

7.75 

17 

18 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

18 

19 

.61 

-    .54 

-3.19 

-    .12 

10.33 

1.11 

2.69 

-    .88 

-      .40  - 

1.13 

.42 

-   1.77 

19 

20 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

20 

21 

-    .14 

1.31 

3.90 

-1.11 

* 

-    .58 

.92 

1.55 

.00  - 

.01 

1.54 

-      .85 

21 

22 

.09 

3.06 

3.49 

.07 

-    1.34 

-3.31 

1.41 

2.45 

1.37 

.57 

* 

-   3.35 

22 

23 

-    .20 

-    .59 

-    .99 

.82 

-      .21 

-4.19 

6.00 

4.31 

-      .40 

.24 

1.35 

-2.27 

23 

24 

-1.98 

.69 

-4.09 

.13 

1.69 

2.66 

.01 

-3.66 

14.75 

* 

-    .06 

-   5.63 

24 

25 

-1.79 

-1.18 

.00 

-    .43 

10.60 

2.21 

.18 

-1.36 

-   6.54 

1.10 

1.10 

.00 

25 

26 

-    .56 

-1.40 

1.54 

.83 

-   2.46 

1.67 

-2.71 

-2.07 

9.46 

.08 

.00 

-      .14 

26 

27 

-1.71 

.68 

9.45 

1.93 

-   2.51 

-5.50 

1.28 

1.92 

7.05  - 

.41 

-    .12 

-   8.09 

27 

28 

-    .99 

-2.16 

-    .37 

.70 

-   2.92 

.00 

1.02 

-    .28 

10.58 

* 

-    .53 

.10 

28 

29 

1.82 

3.02 

.32 

1.94 

-   1.82 

-2.23 

-    .20 

.12 

3.13  - 

.20 

* 

-    1.28 

29 

30 

.35 

.04 

.10 

-    .79 

* 

-    .10 

.79 

.89 

-   2.32 

.19 

-    .16 

8.52 

30 

31 

1.07 

5.59 

2.50 

-    .14 

-   2.18 

.62 

-2.35 

-    .12 

4.05 

1.65 

-    .56 

-   6.30 

31 

32 

-1.48 

-    .82 

3.54 

-    .53 

.  * 

1.23 

1.73 

4.12 

4.80  - 

.19 

2.61 

-   7.99 

32 

33 

-2.15 

-    .13 

5.57 

-1.04 

-   1.06 

-3.40 

.70 

.53 

-   2.74 

.38 

2.08 

5.55 

33 

34 

-    .88 

.46 

-2.41 

2.21 

14.63 

-2.33 

1.25 

-    .01 

-   7.08 

1.19 

1.72 

-   5.53 

34 

35 

3.27 

.02 

2.92 

.52 

.93 

1.76 

2.34 

-1.30 

-   6.55  - 

.63 

1.11 

-    1.17 

35 

36 

-2.99 

-2.22 

-4.30 

.71 

3.24 

1.14 

-1.72 

-    .04 

-   4.50 

1.15 

-    .19 

-    1.24 

36 

37 

1.38 

4.97 

-6.99 

-    .50 

-   2.15 

-1.76 

.91 

-1.53 

.47  - 

.27 

-    .21 

8.57 

37 

38 

5.45 

-1.28 

8.39 

1.58 

-    1.23 

1.78 

-2.78 

-2.07 

4.15 

.26 

* 

-   9.08 

38 

39 

-1.55 

.49 

-    .13 

-    .35 

-   2.32 

1.00 

2.60 

3.92 

5.25  - 

1.02 

.18 

-   3.46 

39 

40 

-    .41 

-    .43 

-4.84 

-    .53 

.72 

2.55 

-1.31 

.88 

-10.72 

.41 

.04 

8.19 

40 

41 

.74 

.56 

.00 

-    .53 

* 

5.72 

-2.39 

-1.64 

1.45  - 

.14 

-    .56 

3.15 

41 

42 

.47 

3.59 

5.50 

-    .55 

-    1.89 

-4.51 

.86 

.03 

-   4.19  - 

.21 

2.72 

.35 

42 

43 

1.16 

1.14 

-2.88 

3.82 

1.43 

-4.44 

1.73 

-    .23 

2.62 

* 

.19 

1.25 

43 

44 

-2.30 

-    .24 

-3.04 

.29 

6.96 

-1.17 

-1.13 

.70 

-   8.27  - 

.22 

.04 

-   2.90 

44 

45 

-1.71 

.15 

-1.72 

.08 

8.77 

3.16 

.39 

-    .60 

-   6.02 

.45 

.21 

.85 

45 

46 

.02 

-    .09 

2.40 

•2.93 

.57 

-1.80 

1.94 

-    .15 

-12.55 

* 

* 

13.04 

46 

47 

-2.76 

-1.16 

2.09 

-    .73 

-   2.29 

-1.31 

2.67 

2.18 

8.40 

2.29 

-    .35 

-   4.82 

47 

48 

.00 

-1.36 

-2.60 

-    .56 

-   3.00 

.17 

-2.37 

2.95 

-   2.29  - 

.46 

.00 

13.62 

48 

49 

-2.03 

4.91 

-1.88 

1.65 

-      .92 

-    .41 

-1.02 

-    .24 

-19.43  - 

.84 

.18 

21.75 

49 

50 

-1.18 

.55 

-3.76 

.50 

6.50 

3.04 

-3.34 

-1.31 

-   6.55 

.52 

.10 

5.35 

50 

51 

.01 

-1.41 

.77 

-    .73 

2.95 

-    .24 

-5.26 

.00 

14.95 

* 

-    .57 

-   4.90 

51 

52 

.88 

-2.05 

-1.26 

-    .04 

.84 

-1.29 

.39 

.31 

5.47 

.36 

1.16 

-2.74 

52 

53 

-    .12 

3.42 

4.27 

.27 

1.44 

-2.99 

.31 

9.63 

-18.02  - 

.60 

-    .28 

2.66 

53 

54 

-2.20 

.09 

1.21 

.04 

-1.83 

-4.66 

2.26 

3.25 

3.49  - 

.24 

.72 

2.29 

54 

55 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

* 

55 

56 

.46 

1.62 

2.17 

.12 

5.83 

-2.50 

-4.66 

3.97 

-12.05  - 

.83 

-    .31 

10.45 

56 

57 

1.30 

-1.15 

.54 

-    .48 

4.94 

.23 

2.84 

.87 

-   2.80  - 

.52 

-    .57 

-   5.01 

57 

58 

-1.84 

-4.03 

4.16 

-    .21 

1.15 

5.08 

-1.15 

-3.46 

6.90 

1.89 

-    .58 

-   4.50 

58 

59 

4.08 

-1.04 

-    .46 

-    .19 

-    1.35 

-3.57 

-    .37 

-3.49 

7.87  - 

1.06 

-    .44 

3.81 

59 

60 

.76 

1.73 

3.87 

-    .48 

-    2.28 

2.11 

* 

-3.49 

12.20 

.57 

-    .60 

-   5.55 

60 

61 

-1.16 

2.13 

-    .49 

.58 

-   2.23 

-1.07 

1.04 

2.96 

6.12 

.77 

1.39 

-   6.33 

61 

62 

-    .25 

4.03 

5.74 

1.62 

4.50 

-4.29 

.37 

1.52 

-14.40  - 

.98 

1.42 

4.35 

62 

63 

-1.32 

.08 

-1.63 

.39 

2.73 

1.90 

-    .52 

.01 

-11.63  - 

.90 

-    .52 

9.77 

63 

64 

.42 

.74 

-    .32 

-    .28 

-    2.66 

4.41 

1.62 

4.72 

3.01 

1.32 

.59 

-10.17 

64 

65 

2.37 

-1.25 

3.41 

-    .54 

-   2.96 

-2.94  ■ 

-    .64 

-    .50 

6.97  - 

.59 

-    .30 

-   5.02 

65 

66 

1.80 

-2.64 

5.69 

.29 

.72 

4.74  ■ 

-    .81 

-2.11 

1.27 

1.12 

.17 

-   6.15 

66 

67 

.78 

.37 

-4.72 

1.16 

.52 

-2.10 

.51 

1.55 

-   5.50 

.30 

-    .56 

12.92 

67 

68 

1.34 

-3.19 

2.50 

-    .27 

5.07 

-1.95 

1.13 

-1.42 

3.64 

* 

.27 

-1.70 

68 

69 

2.94 

-    .16 

-3.15 

.89 

-   2.56 

3.31 

-2.39 

-2.06 

.97  - 

.34 

2.20 

.02 

69 

70 

-1.91 

-2.20 

6.75 

-1.28  • 

-   2.88 

-3.12 

-1.71 

-1.40 

10.52 

.36 

1.69 

-    1.38 

70 

71 

-2.62 

-1.93 

.30 

2.11 

* 

-1.89  ■ 

-    .24 

2.37 

5.96 

* 

.33 

3.40 

71 

72 

-1.63 

-1.48 

-1.01 

.87  • 

-   3.01 

5.46 

.10 

-    .10 

6.15 

.70 

1.23 

-   4.34 

72 

73 

7.58 

3.87 

-    .45 

.40 

5.62 

-2.81 

1.39 

-1.17 

-10.00  - 

.65 

-    .55 

.15 

73 

74 

6.47 

.76 

.70 

-1.16 

-   2.73 

1.27 

* 

1.13 

1.31  - 

.09 

-    .04 

2.68 

74 

75 

-    .93 

-.54 

-1.20 

-    .87  ■ 

-   2.01 

2.17  ■ 

-5.40 

-2.91 

-13.85  - 

.25 

-    .28 

24.65 

75 

76 

-    .68  ■ 

-1.81  ■ 

-    .86 

-1.00 

* 

2.17  • 

-5.04 

-1.17 

18.57 

.01 

-    .54 

-    1.25 

76 

77 

3.29  ■ 

-    .28  • 

-    .45 

.43 

10.36 

5.20  ■ 

-2.63 

-2.76  ■ 

-9.80 

* 

-    .21 

1.28 

77 

78 

.95 

.00 

3.34 

-    .49 

3.08 

4.66 

.09 

1.12  ■ 

-4.70 

.35 

-    .11 

-   5.01 

78 

*  No  data  given 
82 

in  Table  14. 

Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  83 

Measurement  of  Variability — Coefficient  of  Variability. — 
Were  the  question  asked,  which  one  of  the  items  of  expense 
varied  most,  no  satisfactory  deduction  could  be  made  based 
upon  the  different  measures  of  variability  just  discussed.  Does 
the  expense  for  general  administrative  purposes  vary  more  than 
the  expense  for  police  service?  that  for  schools  more  than  that 
for  libraries  ?  that  for  health  more  than  that  for  fire  protection  ? 
It  could  not  be  concluded,  for  instance,  though  the  expense  for 
general  administration  varies  in  the  group  of  cities  under  con- 
sideration from  5.09  %  to  15.66  % — a  difference  of  10.57  % — 
and  while  the  expense  for  police  service  varies  from  4.13  %  to 
16.73  % — a  difference  of  12.65  % — that  the  degree  of  difference 
between  the  two  variabilities  is  that  represented  by  the  difference 
between  12.65  %  and  *o-57  %.  or  by  the  ratio  existing  between 
these  two  quantities.  Neither  would  the  declaration  be  sound 
that  the  difference  in  variability  in  the  expense  for  schools  and 
that  for  libraries  is  the  difference  in  their  gross  variability  or 
the  ratio  that  the  quantity  of  one  variability  bears  to  the  other. 

Table  No.   18 

Table  of  medians,  average  deviations,  standard  deviations,  and  coefficients  of 
variability.  Average  percentile  payments  for  general  and  municipal 
service  expenses.  Fiscal  years  1902  and  1903.  Cities  between  25,000 
and  50,000  population 

Standard  Average        Coefficient  of 

Median.  Deviation.       Deviation.       Variability. 

General  Administration 8 .  08 

Police  Department 8.16 

Fire  Department 9 .  98 

Health  Department 1 .  40 

Charities  and  Corrections . .       3 .  02 

Public  Highways 8.19 

Street  Lighting 6 .  43 

Public  Sanitation 3 .  67 

Schools 32.30 

Libraries 1.14 

Public  Recreation .61 

Interest  on  Debt 12.50  7.79  5.75  1.62 

Without  entering  upon  the  discussion  of  the  rationale  of 
the  mathematical  procedure  involved,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
so-called  coefficient  of  variability  x  does  give  an  adequate  and 
comparable  figure  which  may  serve  as  an  index  of  the  degree  of 

1  See  Thorndike,  E.  L.,  Mental  and  Social  Measurements,  pp.  98-102, 
especially  p.  102. 


2.06 

1.54 

.54 

2.38 

1.74 

.609 

3.31 

2.58 

.817 

.997 

.747 

.633 

4.04 

2.98 

1.71 

2.99 

2.52 

.908 

2.35 

1.84 

.725 

2.43 

1.78 

.927 

8.34 

6.67 

1.175 

.727 

.56 

.524 

.92 

.642 

.814 

84  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

variability  to  which  the  different  items  of  expense  are  subject. 
Developed  according  to  an  empirical  formula,1  these  coefficients 
of  variability  are  given  in  the  fourth  column  of  Table  18.  From 
these  coefficients  it  is  justifiable  to  say  that  the  expense  for 
libraries  and  that  for  general  administration  seems  to  be  least 
subject  to  the  influence  of  those  conditions  likely  to  produce 
variability,  while  the  expense  for  charities  and  corrections,  and 
interest  on  debt,  and  schools,  possess,  in  the  order  named,  the 
largest  degree  of  variability. 

Causes  of  Variability. — The  probable  causes  of  the  variability 
of  expense  discussed  at  length  in  Section  VII.  seem  to  admit  of 
application  in  the  present  instance.  Especially  significant 
appears  to  be  the  negative  influence  of  population  alone.  Of 
the  remaining  possible  causes  previously  posited,  the  only  one 
demanding  special  mention  here  is  that  of  the  mode  of  classi- 
fication of  public  accounts  and  of  systems  of  accounting.  It  is 
believed  that  the  efforts  of  the  Bureau  of  the  Census  to  present 
the  data  of  municipal  finance  in  a  manner  at  once  in  accord 
with  the  standards  of  economists  and  of  public  and  private 
finance,  and  admitting  of  some  degree  of  comparison,  have  re- 
sulted more  successfully  than  any  other  previous  efforts  in 
this  direction.  The  care  and  thoroughness  employed  by  the 
officials  of  the  Census  in  the  preparation  of  adequate  schedules 
and  in  the  collation  of  the  data  would  seem  to  indicate  that 
the  confusion  arising  from  the  varying  systems  of  accounting 
and  from  the  differing  modes  of  classifications  of  public  accounts 
had  been  reduced  to  a  point  which  gives  the  data  special  value 
for  such  group  studies  as  this. 

Relationship  of  Variabilities ;  Coefficient  of  Correlation.2 — 
Developed  in  the  same  manner  as  in  Section  VIII,  the  following 
coefficients  of  correlation  given  in  Table  19  have  been  arrived 
at  upon  the  basis  of  the  average  payments  for  municipal  ex- 
penses for  1902  and  1903. 

There  seems  to  be  no  need  of  analyzing  the  implication  of 
these  correlations.  What  was  said  in  Section  VIII  regarding 
the  meaning  of  these  relationships  finds  additional  proof  in  the 

,  y—  _^_ 

V  Median 

2  See  pp.  56  ft",  for  discussion  of  significance  and  mode  of  derivation  of 
the  coefficient  of  correlation. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  85 

character  of  the  present  coefficients.  Each  series  presents  in 
general  the  same  distinguishing  marks  (compare  Tables  10  and 
19).  Noteworthy  is  the  identity  of  the  positive  correlation  of 
the  expense  for  schools  with  the  expense  for  fire  department,  that 
for  libraries  and  museums  and  that  for  street  lighting. 

Table  No.  19 

Table  of  Pearson  coefficients  of  correlation.     Average  percentile  payments 

for  general  and  municipal  service  expenses.     Fiscal  years  IQ02  and 

1  po j,  all  cities  between  2 §,000  and  §0,000  population 

Schools  with — 

General  Administration —  .  094 

Police  Department —  .  367 

Fire  Department +  .  088 

Health  Department —  .  187 

Charities  and  Corrections —  .371 

Public  Highways -  .  000428 

Street  Lighting +  .  246 

Public  Sanitation —  .  246 

Libraries  and  Museums +  .  30 

Public  Recreation —  .  054 

Interest  on  Debt —  .  541 

XII.     Relationships  of  the  Different  Standards  of  Ex- 
penditures for  Education 

Classification  of  Cities  on  the  Basis  of  Percentile  School  Ex- 
penditures.— The  previous  demonstrations  regarding  variability 
and  relationships  of  municipal  expenditures  have  provided  us, 
it  is  thought,  with  a  new  instrumentality  with  which  to  gain  an 
insight  into  the  significant  meanings  of  these  expenditures. 
We  are  enabled  to  classify  cities  into  groups  according  to  their 
differing  fiscal  characteristics.  Thus,  it  is  possible  to  arrange 
all  of  the  cities,  whose  expenditures  have  been  considered,  into 
groups  according  to  whether  they  spend  a  large  or  small  propor- 
tion of  their  total  municipal  expenditures  for  any  particular 
item.  Such  groupings  on  the  basis  of  percentile  educational 
expenditures  as  have  already  been  represented  *  give  additional 
meanings  to  our  coefficients  of  correlation  and  lend  further 
significance  to  the  phenomenon  of  variability. 

Tables  20(a),  20(6),  and  21  present  certain  other  fiscal  char- 
acteristics of  groups  of  cities,  the  members  of  each  group  being 
selected,  in  tens,  from  the  extremes  of  the  variability  range  of 
percentile  school  expenditures.     Without  additional  comment, 

1  See  Fig.  11,  and  explanation,  p.  60. 


86  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

it  may  be  noted  that  the  totals  (averages  and  medians)  of  the 
various  items  of  expenditure  tend  to  confirm  the  general  rela- 
tionships pointed  out  by  the  Pearson  coefficients  of  correlation. 
Other  groupings  on  this  same  basis  could  be  made  so  as  to  in- 
clude all  of  the  cities.  A  confirmation  of  the  general  tendencies 
indicated  by  the  coefficient  figures  might  be  looked  for,  although, 
as  groups  were  formed  of  cities  lying  close  to  the  central  ten- 
dencies of  the  expenditures,  the  previously  marked  differences 
in  the  group  characteristics  would  tend  to  disappear. 

Table  No.  20  (a) 

Table  showing  general  group  relationships.     Selection  of  cities  based  on  per- 
centile expenditures  for  schools,  and  made  from  all  cities  in  United 
States  having  a  population  of  30,000  and  over.     Fiscal  year  iqoi 

Highest  ten  cities  in  percentile  school  expenditures: 


>> 
0 

0 

6 

2 

"o 
0 
.a 

0 

Hi 

to 
c 

I 

CD 

u 
CO 

ft  a 
W£   . 

QJ   I/>   C 
H  tl  rt 

5j 

,0 

0 

Q 

a 
0 

di 

u 

V 

d 

S 
1 

h 

ft 

0) 

a 

u 

2 

s  - 

aj  aj 
fti-i 
V     . 

QS 

11 

a, 

111 

46.8 

8.26 

7.05 

12.80 

4.57 

8.18 

87 

44.16 

7.20 

3.21 

5.69 

10.86 

9.27 

114 

38.80 

2.79 

9.02 

5.08 

7.30 

7.65 

81 

42.49 

5.40 

7.48 

14.50 

8.21 

10.90 

38 

41.40 

6.14 

9.81 

7.43 

7.50 

8.13 

56 

40.90 

8.74 

8.17 

3.26 

10.50 

9.99 

113 

39.74 

8.46 

4.95 

13.52 

8.04 

5.58 

75 

38.80 

10.80 

12.22 

6.56 

9.66 

9.71 

100 

38.41 

4.99 

6.43 

2.79 

14.44 

15.54 

119 

37.69 

11.32 

7.77 

9.70 

6.85 

10.18 

Median, 

41.15 

7.73 

7.62 

6.12 

8.12 

9.85 

Average, 

41.42 

7.41 

7.61 

8.13 

8.79 

9.51 

Lowest  ten  cities  in  percentile 

school  expenditures: 

37 

15.40 

5.40 

14.43 

17.60 

10.00 

11.10 

43 

14.32 

6.48 

8.74 

12.31 

10.11 

12.15 

17 

13.90 

4.48 

6.76 

27.61 

6.70 

11.71 

5 

13.07 

3.60 

11.65 

15.49 

5.87 

13.17 

99 

12.30 

4.18 

7.36 

28.91 

9.28 

14.34 

68 

12.76 

4.49 

6.64 

25.66 

7.94 

14.78 

12 

11.12 

5.03 

3.69 

18.60 

6.20 

6.24 

133 

10.26 

5.54 

8.80 

30.85 

7.84 

11.45 

46 

9.83 

2.71 

8.02 

29.78 

7.34 

8.60 

80 

6.96 

1.96 

11.80 

29.45 

5.52 

7.29 

Median, 

12.53 

4.49 

7.06 

28.26 

7.59 

11.58 

Average, 

11.99 

4.39 

8.49 

23.63 

7.68 

11.08 

1  For  names  of  cities  see  Table  2,  pp.  22-25. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  87 


Table  No.  20  (6) 

Table  showing  general  group  relationships.     Selection  of  cities  based  on 

percentile  expenditures  for  schools,  and  made  from,  all  cities  in  United 

States  having  a  population  of  30,000  and  over.     Fiscal  year  igoi 

Second  highest  ten  cities  in  percentile  school  expenditures: 


0 

O 

i 

A 
"0 

0 
A 

0 

to 
a 

! 

U 

QJ-W 

ac 

■A  <0 

w£  . 

+*  *>  bo 
8  w.S 

co5.£f 

< 

5 
0 
O 

a 

0 

w 

S 
s 

a 

B 

a 

rt 
O, 

Q 

<a 

1- 

s 

1" 

as  ci 

0  - 
°t. 

V  3 

a, 

118 

36.90 

8.92 

6.01 

12.80 

6.22 

9.90 

2 

36.85 

3.62 

4.82 

6.80 

7.40 

17.66 

59 

36.70 

6.65 

5.27 

6.88 

10.90 

7.43 

129 

36.06 

7.21 

10.83 

8.33 

9.94 

6.25 

25 

35.93 

4.86 

9.07 

7.09 

8.22 

9.08 

90 

35.66 

11.02 

8.33 

9.90 

6.13 

6.43 

93 

35.30 

10.20 

7.64 

4.30 

5.98 

6.94 

77 

35.20 

7.54 

9.03 

12.80 

4.47 

6.83 

84 

34.93 

5.88 

8.25 

7.93 

8.49 

11.45 

132 

34.70 

4.47 

11.03 

6.66 

7.59 

13.24 

Median, 

35.79 

6.93 

8.29 

7.50 

7.50 

8.25 

Average, 

35.82 

7.04 

8.03 

8.35 

7.53 

9.52 

Second  lowest  ten  cities  in  percentile  school  expenditures: 

85 

18.24 

3.17 

9.02 

22.32 

9.28 

7.79 

10 

18.12 

5.48 

6.19 

27.94 

7.59 

11.07 

94 

17.91 

4.58 

2.67 

18.99 

10.11 

12.07 

30 

17.87 

4.83 

7.88 

12.88 

7.66 

6.59 

135 

17.85 

2.41 

9.59 

18.30 

13.26 

12.31 

34 

17.73 

2.10 

7.69 

8.02 

6.79 

7.79 

4 

17.51 

6.72 

7.72 

8.93 

8.82 

13.17 

3 

17.37 

6.46 

5.45 

7.48 

5.76 

22.36 

24 

16.98 

7.72 

5.92 

16.14 

7.43 

6.60 

98 

16.48 

6.59 

12.27 

13.35 

8.60 

15.26 

Median, 

17.79 

5.15 

7.71 

14.74 

S.13 

11.57 

Average, 

17.61 

5.01 

7.44 

15.43 

8.53 

11.50 

'  For 

names  of  cities  see  Table  2,  pp. 

22-25. 

88 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


Table  No.  21 

Table  showing  general  group  relationships.  Selection  of  cities  based  on 
percentile  payments  for  schools,  and  made  from  cities  in  United  States 
having  a  population  of  30,000  to  50,000.  Average  for  fiscal  years 
IQ02  and  190J 

Highest  ten  cities  in  percentile  school  expenditures: 


SS" 


0 

u 

<d 

Q  . 

OB 

en  C 

ID   O 

K 

a! 

Is 

01 

Pi 

0 

O 

"0 

g*3 

0)  c 

O   0) 

P 

•5  c 

_o 

CD 

0 

0 

V 

O 

0 

"+3 

3* 

u 

rt  g 

J3 

3 

3 

CD 
U 
-t-> 

3 

.0  <f. 

2 

3 

2 

(3 

■z 

w 

O 

H. 

£ 

K 

O 

a, 

W 

a. 

A 

fu 

76 

50.87 

7.40 

6.35 

9.12 

.40 

10.36 

.39 

2.60 

1.15 

.07 

11.25 

51 

47.25 

8.09 

6.75 

10.75 

.77 

5.97 

7.95 

1.17 

3.67 

.04 

7.60 

24 

47.05 

6.10 

8.85 

5.89 

1.53 

4.71 

11.85 

6.44 

.01 

.55 

6.87 

60 

44.50 

8.84 

9.89 

13  85 

.92 

.74 

10.30 

.18 

1.71 

.01 

6.95 

28 

42.88 

7.09 

6.00 

9.61 

2.10 

.10 

8.19 

7.45 

3.39 

.08 

12.60 

70 

42.82 

6.17 

5.96 

16.73 

.12 

.14 

5.07 

4.72 

2.27 

1.50 

2.30 

11.12 

26 

41.76 

7.52 

6.76 

11.52 

2.23 

.56 

9.86 

3.72 

1.60 

1.22 

.61 

12.36 

11 

40.80 

8.08 

4.69 

8.71 

.82 

.10 

3.26 

4.06 

2.81 

1.46 

.02 

24.77 

47 

40.70 

5.32 

7.00 

12.07 

.67 

.73 

6.88 

9.10 

5.85 

3.43 

.26 

7.68 

59 

40.17 

12.16 

7.12 

9.52 

1.21 

1.67 

4.62 

6.06 

.18 

.08 

.17 

16.31 

Median, 

42.85 

7.46 

6.76 

10.18 

.87 

.73 

8.07 

4.72 

2.44 

1.46 

.13 

11.19 

Average, 

43.88 

7.68 

6.94 

10.78 

1.08 

1.63 

7  83 

4.80 

2.26 

1.51 

.41 

11.75 

Lowest  ten  cities  in 

percentile  school  expenditures: 

1 

21.70 

11.54 

11.87 

9.22 

1.40 

4.28 

4.83 

7.85 

10.65 

.63 

.24 

14.28 

40 

21.58 

7.67 

7.73 

5.14 

.87 

3.74 

10.74 

5.12 

4.55 

1.55 

.65 

20.69 

63 

20.57 

6.76 

8.24 

8.35 

1.79 

5.75 

10.09 

5.91 

3.68 

.24 

.09 

22.27 

56 

20.25 

8.54 

9.78 

12.15 

1.52 

8.85 

5.69 

1.77 

7.64 

.31 

.30 

22.95 

46 

19.75 

8.10 

8.07 

12.38 

4.33 

3.59 

6.39 

8.37 

3.52 

25.54 

75 

18.45 

7.15 

7.62 

8.78 

.53 

1.01 

10.36 

1.03 

.76 

.89 

.33 

37.15 

62 

17.90 

7.83 

12.19 

15.72 

3.02 

7.52 

3.90 

6.70 

5.19 

.16 

2.03 

16.85 

53 

16.76 

7.96 

11.58 

14.25 

1.67 

4.46 

5.20 

6.74 

13.30 

.54 

.33 

15.16 

14 

13.72 

7.52 

12.32 

13.45 

1.97 

1.94 

10.96 

3.60 

4.14 

.04 

.63 

28.57 

49 

12.87 
19.10 

6.05 

7.75 

13.07 

8.10 

3.05 
1.73 

2.10 
4.01 

7.78 
7.09 

5.41 
5.66 

3.43 
4.35 

.30 
.31 

.79 
.33 

34.25 

Median, 

10.68 

10.69 

22.61 

Average, 

18.36 

7.91 

10.25 

10.75 

2.02 

4.32 

7.59 

5.25 

5.69 

.52 

.60 

23.77 

'  For  names  of  cities  see  Table  14,  pp.  72-73. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  89 

Classification  of  Cities  on  the  Basis  of  Per  Capita  School 
Expenditure. — In  like  manner  Table  22  illustrates  the  construc- 
tion of  groupings  from  the  per  capita  expenditures  which, 
even  more  than  the  percentile  groupings,  give  objective  evidence 
of  the  conditions  predicated  by  the  Pearson  coefficients : 

Table  No.  22 

Table  showing  general  group  relationships.     Selection  of  cities  based  on 

per  capita  expenditures  for  schools,  and  made  front  all  cities  in  United 

States  having  a  population  of  30,000  and  over.     Fiscal  year  iqoi 

Highest  ten  cities  in  per  capita  school  expenditures : 


-J 

s 

£1 

M 

>. 
b 

i/i 

B 

u 

O, 

a 

■a 

**-i 
0 

"o 

0  3 

Q 

■u 

O 

2  0 

V 

6 

-C 

■3° 

0 

u 

0 

u 

2 

w 

Oh 

s 

W 

132 

$5.56 

$2.12 

$1.22 

$   .72 

60 

5.53 

1.04 

1.50 

1.03 

1 

5.51 

3.21 

1.32 

.76 

122 

5.43 

1.94 

1.55 

1.59 

5 

5.31 

3.13 

2.24 

1.34 

25 

4.85 

1.23 

1.11 

.66 

41 

4.67 

1.37 

.97 

.77 

61 

4.64 

1.04 

1.02 

.92 

49 

4.62 

1.56 

1.42 

.72 

120 

4.62 

.98 

.99 

.87 

Median, 

$5.08 

$1.46 

$1.27 

$    .82 

Average, 

5.42 

1.76 

1.41 

.84 

Lowest  ten  cities  in  per  capita 

school  expenditures : 

125 

$1.49 

$   .65 

$   .66 

$   .71 

135 

1.47 

1.02 

1.10 

.20 

126 

1.46 

.56 

.53 

.62 

46 

1.35 

1.18 

1.01 

.37 

37 

1.31 

.95 

.93 

.46 

99 

1.24 

1.45 

.93 

.42 

68 

1.19 

1.38 

.74 

.42 

98 

1.18 

1.02 

.62 

.47 

133 

1.12 

1.26 

.86 

.61 

80 

1.07 

1.12 

.84 

.30 

Median, 

$1.27 

$1.07 

$   .85 

$    .44 

Average, 

1.29 

1.08 

.85 

.44 

Fiscal  Standards  for  Education. — After  all,  it  may  be  asked, 
what  is  the  real  significance  of  these  relationships  and  groupings  ? 
Unless  they  are  indicative  of  certain  positive  or  negative  quali- 
ties of  municipal  activity,  why  develop  them  ?     In  the  general 
1  For  names  of  cities  see  Table  2,  pp.  22-25. 


90  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

attempt  to  make  a  reply  to  this,  we  are  led  to  discern  if  possible 
the  relationships  which  may  exist  between  the  different  expen- 
diture standards  in  current  usage.  In  this  the  effort  will  be 
confined  to  the  different  standards  of  educational  expenditures, 
inasmuch  as  these  are  the  factors  which  are  of  most  concern  in 
the  present  instance. 

Classification  of  Cities  on  Basis  of  Cost  per  Pupil. — The  or- 
dinarily accepted  standard  for  effort  in  the  support  of  public 
education  is  the  amount  expended  according  to  the  number  of 
pupils  educated;  in  general,  the  annual  cost  per  pupil  educated, 
based  on  average  daily  attendance.  This  seems  to  be,  of 
course,  the  sound  basis.  If  expenditures  are  in  any  way  re- 
lated to  efficiency  and  excellence  and  opportunity,  then  the 
actual  amount  of  money  devoted  to  each  pupil  attending 
school  is  the  most  essential  fiscal  fact.  A  city  does  not  educate 
in  its  public  schools  all  of  the  population,  hence  a  rating  on  the 
basis  of  expenditure  per  capita  of  population  would  not  be 
entirely  sound,  except  in  so  far  as  the  number  of  children  in 
cities  bore  a  constant  relation  to  the  total  population.  Even 
the  number  of  children  in  a  community  is  scarcely  an  index  of 
the  number  of  pupils  in  the  public  schools.  Many  within  the  age 
limit  do  not  attend  school  for  one  reason  or  another.  Private 
and  parochial  schools  tend  to  reduce  the  number  of  pupils 
actually  in  the  public  schools. 

Valuation  of  Different  Standards. — In  spite  of  this  apparent 
proof  of  the  validity  of  the  cost  per  pupil  basis,  it  is  here  thought 
that  each  of  the  several  classifications,  percentile,  per  capita  and 
per  pupil,  has  a  special  value  in  estimating  potential  municipal 
effort  and  actual  educational  opportunity  afforded  in  any  city. 
The  difficulty  has  been  in  actual  administrative  practice,  not  in 
the  lack  of  recognition  of  these  different  standards,  but  in  the 
assignment  of  an  adequate  value  to  each. 

Relationship  of  Different  Standards. — Before  suggesting  any 
method  by  which  this  possible  value  may  be  attached  to  each 
of  these  standards,  it  is  necessary  to  determine  in  some  way 
just  what  relations  these  different  standards  bear  to  one  another. 
Are  they  totally  independent,  or  does  the  knowledge  of  one  give 
any  information  concerning  the  others?  To  present  the  prob- 
lem in  a  more  definite  manner,  Table  23  has  been  constructed. 
The  first  three  columns  of  the  table  (omitting  the  column  giving 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  91 

the  index  numbers  of  the  cities)  give  the  rankings  of  the  135 
cities  above  30,000  population,  for  the  fiscal  year  1900  according 
to  the  three  standards  which  have  been  indicated. 

The  rankings  of  the  first  column  were  obtained  by  arrang- 
ing the  cities  according  to  their  percentile  expenditures  for 
education,  giving  to  the  city  that  spent  the  highest  percentage, 
of  its  total  expenditures,  for  education  rank  1,  to  the  city  that 
spent  the  second  highest  percentage  rank  2,  etc.  In  a  similar 
manner,  the  cities  in  column  two  were  ranked  according  to 
their  per  capita  expenditures.  The  figures  for  column  three 
were  obtained  in  an  arbitrary  yet  uniform  manner,  from  the 
data  published  in  the  report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner 
of  Education  for  1899-1900,1  by  dividing  the  combined  ex- 
penditures for  teaching  and  supervision,  and  current  and  inci- 
dental expenses,  by  the  average  daily  attendance.  As  this  data 
is  gathered  by  the  Commissioner  of  Education  directly  from 
the  school  superintendents,  it  is,  without  doubt,  fairly  reliable. 

From  a  casual  inspection  of  these  columns  one  might  easily 
infer  the  existence  of  a  positive  correlation  between  columns 
two  and  three.  That  such  a  mutual  relationship  is  present  is 
indicated  by  Figure  29.  It  is  of  such  a  direct  and  conclusive 
nature  that  no  attempt  was  made  to  measure  its  exact  amount 
by  the  Pearson  coefficient. 

The  relations  between  columns  one  and  three  and  one  and 
two  are  of  a  neutral  or  slightly  negative  character.  This  is 
demonstrated  graphically  in  Figures  30  and  31,  which  represent 
the  relations  as  they  exist  between  the  cities  of  from  30,000  to 
50,000  population. 

Value  of  Percentile  Standard. — In  view  of  these  negative  or 
neutral  relationships  between  the  rankings  according  to  the 
percentile  standard-  and  those  according  to  the  other  two,  what 
estimate  may  be  put  upon  this  standard?  It  serves  indeed,  as 
we  have  already  seen,  as  a  means  of  determining  with  consider- 
able accuracy  the  exact  fiscal  position  of  public  education  in 
its  relation  to  other  municipal  activities.  These  relationships 
enable  us  to  state  specifically  certain  characteristics  of  fiscal 

1  Vol.  II,  Table  7,  pp.  1798-1809,  Statistics  of  Population  and  School 
Enrollment  and  Attendance  in  Cities  over  8,000  Population,  1 899-1 900; 
Table  10,  pp.  1832-1841,  Statistics  of  Expenditures  of  Public  Schools  of 
Cities  over  8,000  Inhabitants  in  i8gg-igoo. 


92  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Table  No.  23 

Rank  of  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population  in  accordance 
with  expenditures  for  education 


0 

"o 
0" 

is  <» 
*£ 

C  OS 

Jig 
.tJ=3o> 

PlfllH 

ai  a> 

0  a 

a, 

0 
0 

OS 

Eos 
30s 

^2 

u 
&C 

gp* 
O 

00 

as 
9 

> 

■d 
0 

3 

'S 

a 
3 

Pi 

13 
a 

1 
0 

■o.So 

Total  Expenditures. 
Maintenance  and 
Operation.      Per 
Capita  Rank. 

1 

122 

6 

4 

282 

15 

111 

3 

2 

30 

25 

20 

235 

10 

29 

73 

3 

113 

87 

83 

902 

103 

104 

36 

4 

115 

90 

80 

900 

101 

106 

37 

5 

119 

4 

7 

285 

16 

109 

2 

6 

120 

104 

66 

882 

97 

110 

40 

7 

66 

70 

52 

602 

61 

65 

66 

8 

96 

56 

64 

680 

72 

92 

26 

9 

88 

24 

6 

278 

14 

86 

21 

10 

110 

57 

87 

826 

93 

101 

17 

11 

125 

88 

24 

634 

63 

112 

12 

12 

130 

125 

50 

885 

99 

47 

13 

64 

71 

51 

596 

60 

63 

69 

14 

86 

93 

90 

901 

102 

84 

65 

15 

79 

19 

25 

340 

22 

77 

20 

16 

102 

33 

28 

443 

32 

98 

13 

17 

127 

105 

108 

1109 

119 

113 

10 

18 

105 

96 

104 

1018 

114 

51 

19 

53 

32 

72 

562 

56 

52 

49 

20 

106 

20 

10 

322 

20 

100 

8 

21 

23 

54 

33 

373 

28 

22 

96 

22 

49 

64 

32 

450 

34 

48 

71 

23 

97 

82 

89 

885 

100 

93 

46 

24 

117 

34 

38 

526 

48 

108 

6 

25 

9 

7 

11 

94 

2 

9 

63 

26 

50 

68 

101 

809 

90 

49 

75 

27 

111 

89 

70 

839 

94 

102 

41 

28 

74 

58 

40 

522 

46 

73 

50 

29 

82 

9 

22 

301 

19 

80 

7 

30 

78 

22 

61 

527 

49 

76 

25 

31 

48 

39 

53 

478 

39 

47 

57 

32 

56 

72 

88 

768 

84 

55 

79 

33 

104 

75 

75 

808 

89 

99 

39 

34 

40 

129 

98 

957 

109 

39 

132 

35 

54 

26 

29 

331 

21 

53 

48 

36 

25 

11 

30 

233 

9 

24 

56 

37 

118 

127 

114 

1187 

122 

111 

38 

1 

55 

41 

372 

27 

1 

126 

39 

58 

48 

19 

355 

24 

57 

52 

40 

75 

52 

56 

586 

58 

74 

44 

41 

84 

5 

18 

273 

13 

82 

5 

42 

71 

84 

34 

564 

57 

70 

68 

43 

123 

122 

128 

1252 

126 

72 

44 

41 

61 

82 

675 

70 

40 

78 

45 

26 

46 

36 

370 

26 

25 

85 

»  For  names  of  cities,  see  Table  1,  pp.  18  ff. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  93 

Table  No.  23  {Continued) 

Rank  of  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population  in  accordance 
with  expenditures  for  education 


a  0 

OS  w 

*l   . 

"o.a> 

J3 

"3 

a 

CD 

nJ  O  <d 

12  c  c  rt 

>, 

*£©' 

rt  to 

jsa> 

> 

fH 

ct<n-s 

S2.2I* 

u?o 

*3  3© 

&,* 

•0 

•d 

•dgG 

S-§-5<3 

"o 
0 

3  x 

O 

0 

i 
& 

'3 

■£•0  £ 

w.S  5T3. 

«gOo 
0 

46 

129 

123 

125 

1252 

127 

45 

47 

90 

114 

122 

1232 

125 

49 

48 

98 

78 

16 

510 

43 

94 

43 

49 

62 

17 

1 

180 

4 

61 

27 

50 

42 

101 

118 

977 

112 

41 

112 

51 

51 

108 

99 

921 

105 

50 

113 

52 

59 

103 

107 

962 

111 

58 

100 

53 

87 

115 

109 

1064 

115 

85 

103 

54 

69 

99 

102 

927 

106 

68 

86 

55 

101 

35 

44 

527 

55 

97 

14 

56 

8 

10 

13 

111 

3 

8 

70 

57 

85 

81 

71 

768 

85 

83 

85 

58 

93 

36 

43 

509 

42 

90 

22 

59 

3 

12 

65 

367 

25 

3 

88 

60 

47 

3 

23 

218 

8 

46 

11 

61 

52 

8 

49 

373 

29 

51 

18 

62 

100 

100 

45 

725 

78 

96 

59 

63 

63 

63 

39 

510 

44 

62 

60 

64 

29 

66 

58 

546 

54 

28 

106 

65 

99 

113 

35 

712 

76 

95 

76 

66 

61 

67 

60 

623 

62 

60 

64 

67 

32 

47 

54 

475 

38 

31 

82 

68 

126 

128 

132 

1296 

132 

81 

69 

No 

data 

70 

34 

13 

55 

382 

31 

33 

54 

71 

76 

111 

119 

1080 

118 

101 

72 

83 

18 

14 

290 

17 

81 

15 

73 

28 

86 

42 

524 

47 

27 

115 

74 

91 

110 

112 

1072 

117 

88 

90 

75 

4 

85 

96 

743 

80 

4 

124 

76 

43 

79 

124 

446 

107 

42 

92 

77 

22 

76 

85 

697 

74 

21 

116 

78 

112 

31 

31 

472 

37 

103 

9 

79 

67 

16 

5 

207 

7 

66 

23 

80 

132 

131 

120 

1257 

128 

29 

81 

6 

27 

21 

198 

6 

6 

108 

82 

44 

14 

12 

190 

5 

43 

42 

83 

38 

102 

97 

867 

96 

37 

114 

84 

15 

73 

91 

699 

75 

15 

119 

85 

107 

106 

116 

1112 

120 

62 

86 

95 

109 

47 

752 

81 

83 

87 

35 

60 

59 

545 

53 

34 

89 

88 

108 

119 

123 

1188 

123 

84 

89 

16 

40 

105 

687 

73 

16 

95 

90 

24 

121 

79 

806 

88 

23 

130 

»  For  names  of  cities,  see  Table  1,  pp.  18  ff. 


94  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

Table  No.   23  (Continued) 

Rank  of  cities  in  the  United  States  above  30,000  population  in  accordance 
with  expenditures  for  education 


>> 

b 

6 

£  £-; 
bo 

*JtJiH 

w  C 

a)  S 

15 

.ti.-SOJ 

O  V 

u  a 
CUW 

0 
0 

.05 

u  H 

<u  - 

i 

> 
•a 

£ 

'3 

A! 

a 
w 

I 

<S  O  u 

gens 

•a»b 

II 

Total  Expenditures. 
Maintenance  and 
Operation.       Per 
Capita  Rank. 

91 

18 

65 

84 

651 

67 

18 

110 

92 

92 

49 

69 

676 

71 

89 

28 

93 

10 

41 

78 

533 

51 

10 

104 

94 

109 

116 

127 

1201 

124 

77 

95 

114 

59 

15 

480 

41 

105 

19 

96 

21 

107 

111 

917 

104 

20 

127 

97 

57 

92 

73 

755 

82 

56 

87 

98 

No 

data 

99 

124 

130 

129 

1283 

130 

107 

100 

20 

112 

115 

951 

108 

128 

101 

39 

80 

100 

818 

91 

38 

99 

102 

No  data 

103 

128 

50 

46 

636 

65 

114 

4 

104 

81 

44 

37 

479 

40 

79 

32 

105 

89 

51 

9 

376 

30 

87 

35 

106 

13 

28 

48 

350 

23 

13 

91 

107 

37 

74 

92 

758 

83 

36 

98 

108 

46 

117 

103 

958 

110 

45 

123 

109 

27 

97 

62 

655 

69 

26 

121 

110 

94 

45 

27 

458 

36 

91 

24 

111 

2 

91 

93 

741 

79 

2 

129 

112 

73 

69 

106 

883 

98 

72 

61 

113 

11 

98 

110 

866 

95 

11 

125 

114 

5 

21 

74 

443 

33 

5 

102 

115 

33 

95 

94 

821 

92 

32 

117 

116 

36 

77 

95 

778 

86 

35 

105 

117 

55 

42 

81 

641 

66 

54 

53 

118 

19 

94 

67 

655 

68 

19 

122 

119 

12 

118 

121 

983 

113 

12 

131 

120 

77 

15 

8 

239 

11 

75 

16 

121 

14 

43 

86 

587 

59 

14 

97 

122 

116 

2 

2 

254 

12 

107 

1 

123 

45 

53 

77 

634 

64 

44 

67 

124 

72 

23 

17 

298 

18 

71 

30 

125 

103 

126 

131 

1143 

121 

118 

126 

60 

120 

117 

1065 

116 

59 

120 

127 

80 

37 

26 

451 

35 

78 

31 

128 

70 

29 

57 

512 

45 

69 

34 

129 

17 

62 

113 

785 

87 

17 

109 

130 

68 

30 

63 

541 

52 

67 

38 

131 

31 

38 

76 

556 

55 

30 

80 

132 

7 

1 

3 

32 

1 

7 

33 

133 

131 

132 

126 

1288 

131 

55 

134 

65 

83 

68 

719 

77 

64 

74 

135 

121 

124 

130 

1264 

129 

93 

1  For  names  of  cities,  see  Table  i,  pp.  18  ff. 


Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


95 


practices  in  cities.  Alone,  the  percentile  standard  of  expenditure 
tells  us  to  just  what  extent  it  is  necessary  for  the  municipality 
to  support  education,  or  to  what  extent  the  municipality  is 
willing  to  support  education,  or  to  what  extent  it   is   able   to 


FIG.  29. 1 


PEB..    PUPIL 
6*         66  76  66 


108        116        186 


support  education.  Necessity,  willingness,  and  ability  may 
represent  different  things  entirely.  The  percentile  expendi- 
ture may  be  comparatively  low,  yet  the  per  capita  and  cost 
per  pupil  expenditures  high  (compare  city  122  in  the  tables). 
In  this  case  the  possible  number  of  pupils  may  be  compara- 
tively low  and  the  general  resources  of  the  community  com- 
paratively high.  In  either  case,  it  would  be  necessary  to  make 
use  of  the  per  capita  or  cost  per  pupil  rankings  and  standards. 

xValue  of  Per  Capita  Standard. — The  closeness  with  which 
this  standard  approximates  that  of  the  cost  per  pupil  in  any 
1  See  p.  9 1  for  explanation. 


96  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

city  might  be  indicative,  in  general,  of  the  extent  to  which  the 
facilities  for  public  education  were  utilized  by  all  of  the  children 
of  the  community.  Any  great  divergence  would  indicate  some 
cause  which  led  to  an  unbalancing  of  the  normal  proportion  of 
children  and  adults  in  the  population,  or  it  might  indicate  a 
non-attendance  of  pupils  upon  the  public  schools. 

Value  of  Cost  per  Pupil  Standard. — Without  entering  upon 
any  detailed  discussion  as  to  the  validity  of  the  method  by 

Table  No.  24 

Table  of  frequencies.     Expenditure  per  pupil  for  schools.    Derived  from  data 

contained  in  report  of  the  United  States  Commissioner  of  Education, 

1899-1900 

All  cities  above  All  cities  between 

Cost  per  pupil.  30,000  population.  30,000  and  50,000  population. 

$11  1  0 

12  0  0 

13  1  1 

14  2  2 

15  4  2 

16  3  1 

17  3  2 

18  1  0 

19  3  3 

20  6  3 

21  8  3 

22  12  7 

23  '  •   7  2 

24  16  10 

25  5  2 

26  12  2 

27  5  3 

28  7  1 

29  9  0 

30  5  2 

31  5  1 

32  6  3 

33  2  0 

34  3  2 

35  0  0 

36  1  0 

37  1  1 

38  2  1 

39  1  1 

40  0 

41  0 

42  1 

Total,  132  55 

which  this  factor  should  be  derived,  and  assuming  that,  in 
general,  a  high  cost  per  pupil  is  indicative  of  a  high  standard 
of  opportunity  for  education,  it  may  be  asserted  that,  in  rank- 
ing cities  in  accordance  with  their  fiscal  policy  toward  educa- 


66 


60 


16 


40 


PIG    301 


35 


M 
J 
M 
N 

30    g 

36    W 
CM 


20 
15 

10 
5 


P  ER     PUPI L 


10  15  20  25  30  36  40  46  60 


55 


FIG     31 


10 


PEE   CAPITA    POPULATION 


10  1B  20  25  30  35  40  ia  &0  55 

'  See  page  9  1  for  explanation 
97 


98  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

tion,  the  greater  weight  should  be  given  to  this  factor.  In  the 
present  rankings  a  small  number  of  discrepancies  may  have 
arisen  by  ranking  some  cities  too  high,  owing  to  such  causes,  as, 
for  instance,  an  extraordinarily  high  expenditure  for  secondary 
education,  which  would  tend  to  raise  the  cost  per  pupil  rank 
above  that  obtaining  in  reality  by  the  average  expenditure  for 
all  pupils. 

Rankings  According  to  Weighted  Values. — Columns  four  and 
five  of  Table  23  are  suggested  as  a  possible  method  by  means 
of  which  communities  could  be  given  a  financial  rank  for  their 
educational  expenditures,  by  assigning  certain  values  to  the 
three  previously  discussed  standards.  Column  four  was  de- 
veloped by  assigning  a  value  of  two  to  the  rankings  of  column 
one,  a  value  of  three  to  those  of  column  two,  and  a  value  of 
five  to  those  of  column  three.  The  cities  were  then  ranked  in 
accordance  with  these  weighted  values,  to  the  lowest  value 
being  given  the  first  rank.  The  plan  here  followed  is  one  that 
might  be  adapted  on  a  more  extended  scale,  including,  for  in- 
stance, such  items  as  the  percentage  of  the  total  amount  ex- 
pended for  education  devoted  to  the  salaries  of  teachers,  the 
proportional  amounts  devoted  to  elementary  and  secondary 
education,  and  so  forth.  By  reason  of  the  generally  low  posi- 
tion of  the  southern  cities,  a  ranking  according  to  the  weighted 
values  is  given  in  column  six  of  Table  23,  excluding  the  southern 
cities. 

In  the  last  column  of  this  table  all  of  the  cities  are  ranked 
in  accordance  with  their  total  municipal  expenditures  on  the 
per  capita  basis.  '  The  relation  between  the  per  capita  expendi- 
tures for  education  and  the  per  capita  total  expenditures,  as 
determined  by  the  Pearson  formula,  gave  a  result  of  +  .56. 
This  coefficient  is  to  be  interpreted  as  meaning  that,  as  the 
general  municipal  expenditures  increase,  the  expenditures  for 
education  do  not  increase  at  the  same  rate.  In  this  respect 
this  coefficient  seems  to  indicate  a  similar  tendency  to  that  de- 
rived from  the  relation  between  the  amount  of  school  ex- 
penditures and  the  assessed  valuation  of  property  in  cities.1 
XIII.     General  Conclusions 

Aside  from  the  detailed  results  of  this  study  recorded  in  the 
preceding  chapters,  it  seems  pertinent  to  gather  together  here 

1  See  page  66. 


423]         Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education  99 

some  of  the  larger  and  wider  aspects  of  the  method  used  and  of 
the  results  obtained. 

The  validity  of  the  application  of  such  a  statistical  method  as 
that  employed  cannot,  I  believe,  be  questioned.  The  study  of 
the  financial  statistics  of  education,  through  the  medium  of 
large  groups  of  cities  needs  no  further  justification,  if  such  statis- 
tics are  to  be  raised  above  the  plane  of  mere  one  to  one  com- 
parison of  cities  and  are  to  be  utilized  for  general  scientific 
conclusions. 

The  study  of  the  expenditures  for  public  education  with 
reference  to  the  expenditures  for  other  municipal  activities 
should  be  extended  until  the  relationships  between  all  of  these 
different  expenditures  can  be  defined  and  their  meaning  fully 
understood.  As  cities  increase  in  size,  and  the  extent,  number, 
and  importance  of  municipal  functions  increase,  thus  bringing 
a  greater  burden  to  the  sources  of  the  municipal  income,  there 
will  develop  a  greater  necessity  for  a  knowledge  and  understand- 
ing of  these  relations,  both  for  a  fuller  recognition  of  the  essential 
conditions  of  municipal  life  and  for  a  better  comprehension  of 
the  legitimate  claims  of  public  education  for  a  more  generous 
support. 

The  finances  of  public  education  in  a  municipality  cannot  be 
studied  apart  from  the  finances  of  other  activities  any  more  than 
the  public  school  as  an  institution  can  be  studied  in  isolation 
from  its  social  environment.  The  wider  consideration  of  this 
important  matter  will  lead  to  two  much-desired  results. 

First,  there  would  be  a  tendency  toward  the  breaking  down 
of  that  social  and  administrative  isolation  of  the  public  schools 
which  now  obtains  in  so  many  communities.  The  idea  of  the 
unity  of  the  municipal  life  and  institutions  brought  forward  in 
the  introduction  of  this  study  will  be  furthered  only  when  the 
mutual  dependence  of  the  social  activities  within  that  life  is 
realized.  Without  doubt  there  is  a  grave  danger  in  not  having 
the  public  schools  of  all  cities  safeguarded  against  the  attacks  of 
vicious  politics  and  self-seeking  prejudices.  But  politics  and 
prejudices  of  this  sort  exist  in  a  greater  or  less  degree  in  every 
community.  Merely  to  keep  the  public  schools  free  from  their 
influence  is  not  to  protect  the  remaining  elements  of  the  muni- 
cipal life.  Each  of  these  elements  possesses  a  potential  power 
for  education.     Each  should  be  entitled  only  to  such  proportion 


ioo  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 

of  the  public  revenue  as  is  demonstrated  by  its  efficiency  and 
importance  within  the  municipal  economy. 

Second,  there  would  result  a  broader  conception  of  the  eco- 
nomic importance  of  education,  which  would  serve  to  supple- 
ment a  rational  treatment  of  those  fundamental  and  far-reaching 
problems  of  financial  support  at  present  confronting  the  educa- 
tional activities  in  most  American  cities.  The  fiscal  relation- 
ships that  have  been  pointed  out  are  of  the  variety  demanded  for 
a  correct  discrimination  of  the  rightful  quantity  of  public  sup- 
port to  which  each  of  the  municipal  activities  is  economically 
entitled. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY 

i.     Bulletin,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  No.  24,  September, 

1899,  Statistics  of  Cities.     Washington,  1899. 

2.  Bulletin,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  No.  30,  September, 

1900.  Statistics  of  Cities.     Washington,  1900. 

3.  Bulletin,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  No.  36,  September, 

1901,  Statistics  of  Cities.     Washington,  1901. 

4.  Bulletin,  United  States  Department  of  Labor,  No.  42,  September, 

1902.  Statistics  of  Cities.     Washington,  1902. 

5.  An  Introduction  to  the  Theory  of  Mental  and  Social  Measurements. 

Edward  L.  Thorndike.     New  York,  1904. 

6.  Educational  Psychology.     Edward  L.  Thorndike.     New  York,  1903. 

7.  Statistics  and  Sociology.     Richmond  Mayo-Smith.     New  York,  1896. 

8.  Introduction  to  Economics.     Henry  Rogers  Seager.     New  York,  1904. 

9.  The  Growth  of  Cities  in  the  Nineteenth  Century.     Adna  Ferrin  Weber. 

Studies  in  History,  Economics,  and  Public  Law,  Columbia  Uni- 
versity.    New  York,  1899. 

School  Administration  in  Municipal  Government.  Frank  Rollins. 
New  York,  1902. 

The  Centralization  of  Administration  in  New  York  State.  John  A. 
Fairlie.     New  York,  1898. 

Public  Administration  inr^ffl assachusetts :  The  Relation  of  Central  to 
Local  Activity.     Robert  Harvey  Whitten.     New  York,  1898. 

13.  Municipal  Problems.     Frank  J.  Goodnow.     New  York,  1897. 

14.  City  Government  in  the  United  States.     Frank  J.  Goodnow.     New 

York,  1904. 

15.  Municipal  Administration.     John  A.  Fairlie.     New  York.  1901. 

16.  The  American  City:    A  Problem  in  Democracy.     Delos  F.  Wilcox. 

New  York,  1904. 

17.  American  Municipal  Progress.     Charles  Zueblin.     New  York,  1902. 

18.  City  Government  in  the  United  States.     Alfred  R.  Conkling.     New 

York,  1895. 


425]  Some  Fiscal  Aspects  of  Public  Education 


101 


19.  More  Money  for  the  Public  Schools.     Charles  W.  Eliot.     New  York, 

1903. 

20.  Our  Schools,  Their  Administration  and  Supervision.     William  Esta- 

brook  Chancellor.      Boston,  1904. 

2 1 .  Proceedings  of  the  Columbus  Conference  for  Good  City  Government  and 

Fifth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Municipal  League,  No- 
vember 16-18,  1899.  Clinton  Rogers  Woodruff,  Editor.  Phila- 
delphia, 1899. 

22.  Proceedings  of  the  Milwaukee  Conference  for  Good  City  Government 

and  Sixth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Municipal  League. 
September  19-21,  1900.  Clinton  Rogers  Woodruff,  Editor 
Philadelphia,  1900. 

23.  Proceedings  of  the  Rochester  Conference  for  Good  City  Government  and 

Seventh  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Municipal  League, 
May  8-10,  1901.  Clinton  Rogers  Woodruff,  Editor.  Phila- 
delphia, 1 90 1. 

24.  Proceedings  of  the  Chicago  Conference  for  Good  City  Government  and 

the  Tenth  Annual  Meeting  of  the  National  Municipal  League, 
April  27-29,  1904.  Clinton  Rogers  Woodruff.  Editor.  Phila- 
delphia, 1904. 

25.  Reports  of  an  Investigation  Concerning  the  Cost  of  Maintaining  the 

Public  School  System  of  the  City  of  New  York  by  the  Department 
of  Finance  (Investigations  Division).     New  York,  1904. 

26.  Uniform  Municipal  Accounting;  Minutes  of  a  Conference  held  in  the 

City  of  Washington,  November  19  and  20,  1903,  under  the  Au- 
spices of  the  United  States  Bureau  of  the  Census.  Washington. 
Government  Printing  Office,  1904. 

27.  Wealth,   Debt   and   Taxation,   Municipal   Finance:    Instructions   to 

Clerks  and  Special  Agents.  Department  of  Commerce  and 
Labor,  Bureau  of  the  Census,  1904. 

28.  Salaries  of  Teachers.     J.  B.  Clark.     Columbia  University  Quarterly. 

I:  in— iai. 
J9j_   Statistics  of  Cities  Having  a  Population  of  over  25,000,  1902  and 
1903.      Department  of  Commerce  and   Labor,  Bureau  of  the 
Census,  Washington    1905 


o*s 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    001  177  087    2 


mmw. 
mffiBi 


raPSSs 


3&HNGK91H 

HHHhBh 

%<  A^Hpp  BT 

$H9HRBIBSflHHH^ 

hohl 


Si  ■   ■      '  :  '  ;:     ' 

■       ■-■■^■' ■'■■■■.  . 

UHRinHKHi 


ISVBnHi 

■  ;':  ■   ■■  ■■■■ 


